Page 20 | Really regretting getting the Covid jab (warning pity party)

FlemCandango · 2023-11-29T12:27:28+00:00

I had my COVID vaccination on Saturday. I have had all the available boosters since lockdown as I have had some health issues that put me in a "slightly vulnerable to COVID" category. Went to local chemist had the jab and a charity shop mooch, then came home all fine. 10-12 hours later I start feeling ropey. I know I might be in for a rough night as I have been known to react badly. So I had violent chills, followed by feverishness, crazy fever dreams, headache untouched by paracetamol, couldn't get out of bed for a wee without help, joint pain, nausea, loss of appetite ... This went on for 24 hours. I was still a wreck on Monday, so day off work, Tuesday tired but felt better and felt normal by the evening. I expected to be back at work today. Then in the middle of the night, chills again I was shivering violently, headache returned plus sore throat and a cough. Most likely an opportunistic virus 🦠 but I am wondering why I put myself through all this🙄 Not sure if the net benefit outweighs the massively inconvenient time off work and feeling like shit-ness of it all. I will think hard before taking the next booster if offered. I have the flu jab every year - never any issues with that one.

Jumpingthruhoops · 04/12/2023 15:02

PhoneChargerCable · 04/12/2023 13:19

No, 60 might be the number of people they cannot argue as to having died as a result of the vaccine. Do you know how hard it is to get a severe reaction to a vaccine recognised as such? Do you actually believe that none of the huge number of "sudden deaths" reported in the press or the huge number of strokes and cardiac arrests causing deaths of late are in any way related to the covid vaccines? One of the ladies who I know that died literally had the jab and died the next day. Mid 40s, mum of three, otherwise fit and healthy.She isn't in the ONS stats as she lived in the US. The other lady was my colleague. Diagnosed as vaccine induced CIDP, then died of a massive stroke. The third was my uncle. We watching him deteriorate after each booster. Do you think his doctors recorded that as a vaccine related death? Don't be ridiculous! 60 people?! GIven that I DO know three, I would suggest that 60 is a MASSIVE underestimate.

Edited

Show quote history

I really wouldn't bother trying to engage. They ALL know better. Apparently. 🙄

Do keep speaking out about this. These conversations need to be had. Sorry for your loss.

IClaudine · 04/12/2023 15:24

Do you actually believe that none of the huge number of "sudden deaths" reported in the press or the huge number of strokes and cardiac arrests causing deaths of late are in any way related to the covid vaccines?

Could you link to the stats for these sudden deaths, strokes and cardiac arrests, please @PhoneChargerCable ?

sunglassesonthetable · 04/12/2023 15:31

I really wouldn't bother trying to engage. They ALL know better. Apparently. 🙄

I think you're the one that clearly knows better tbh.

If things don't make sense, they don't make sense, which ever side of the fence you are. 😄

sunglassesonthetable · 04/12/2023 15:37

@Jumpingthruhoops

Longma · 04/12/2023 20:04

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines. at the request of it's author.

CouchCat · 04/12/2023 23:24

@Jumpingthruhoops

I found this exchange between US representative and a Twitter employee very interesting. Whatever your politics, I think we can all agree that those with no medical qualifications have absolutely no right silencing actual experts just for having a different opinion. Which they did.

For someone who talks about censoring/silencing such a great deal, I'd have thought you'd find that clip infuriating. Nancy Mace asks a question and doesn't allow Ms. Gadde the opportunity to answer, talks over her, or misinterprets what she says.

Additionally, I'm sure Gadde wouldn't have been working in a silo. The decision wouldn't have been hers alone, and there would have been plenty of advisors and committees surrounding these issues.

Jumpingthruhoops · 04/12/2023 23:57

CouchCat · 04/12/2023 23:24

@Jumpingthruhoops

I found this exchange between US representative and a Twitter employee very interesting. Whatever your politics, I think we can all agree that those with no medical qualifications have absolutely no right silencing actual experts just for having a different opinion. Which they did.

For someone who talks about censoring/silencing such a great deal, I'd have thought you'd find that clip infuriating. Nancy Mace asks a question and doesn't allow Ms. Gadde the opportunity to answer, talks over her, or misinterprets what she says.

Additionally, I'm sure Gadde wouldn't have been working in a silo. The decision wouldn't have been hers alone, and there would have been plenty of advisors and committees surrounding these issues.

Might have guessed you'd have a problem with this... 🙄

Firstly, there's a massive difference in asking a straight-forward question and interrupting before someone has a chance to answer, and asking a straight-forward question, and interrupting when it immediately becomes clear that person is not going to give anything even vaguely resembling a straight answer. You know that, right?

Secondly, and most importantly, it doesn't matter one iota whether Ms Gadde was working alone or as part of a team at Twitter. The point is that, as a representative of the company, she has categorically admitted that Twitter WAS under govt orders to hide certain opinions/information that didn't support the narrative - which is EXACTLY what this whole 'debate' has been about!

I said information was hidden, posters asked for (or rather demanded!) proof.
Well, how much more proof do you need than video evidence of a Twitter employee admitting they did this??

I'd probably stop now, if I were you. Your argument is falling apart like a cheap suit!

CouchCat · 05/12/2023 04:34

@Jumpingthruhoops

Firstly, there's a massive difference in asking a straight-forward question and interrupting before someone has a chance to answer, and asking a straight-forward question, and interrupting when it immediately becomes clear that person is not going to give anything even vaguely resembling a straight answer. You know that, right?
How does it immediately become clear if the person speaking is immediately interrupted? I would have respected Mace more if she had let Gadde speak. She didn't. The person with the most airtime in that clip was .. Mace.

I said information was hidden, posters asked for (or rather demanded!) proof. Well, how much more proof do you need than video evidence of a Twitter employee admitting they did this??
I saw a Twitter employee agreeing that, yes, they did remove some content at the request of the US Government. I'm not perturbed by that, though, given how much dangerous pseudoscience abounded during the pandemic when the population was at its most vulnerable. That was the correct decision at the time. With little moderation, Twitter/X is not a comfortable platform any longer.

I'd probably stop now, if I were you. Your argument is falling apart like a cheap suit!
Is it? I'm not trying to make an argument, anyway. This is simply how I see it.

CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau · 05/12/2023 06:50

Just so I know @Jumpingthruhoops (although @CouchCat feel free to answer) were the words used “conform to the narrative”? Or was it more, as CouchCat says, countering dangerous pseudoscience. I can sort of see (if I squint) how governments like the UK’s might want to have a “narrative” about having heroically stopped the virus. But even they can’t counter bodies piling high and a relentlessly progressing virus. So it was in their ruthless self-interest as well as the interest of those they governed only to roll out the vaccine if it worked. If it had started causing harm worse than the virus, nobody who wasn’t completely insane would have kept administering it and that would have required the governments of every country which had it all over the world to be entirely completely insane.
Given that social media companies like Twitter generally do at least a fair amount of content moderation - promoting emotive stuff and stuff which is paid for for example - it’s not that unusual for the government to ask them to suppress stuff which could actually cause harm. And I stress again, that includes harm on a population level, not just “my second cousin was in the 5% who suffered harm”.

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 06:58

I saw a Twitter employee agreeing that, yes, they did remove some content at the request of the US Government. I'm not perturbed by that, though, given how much dangerous pseudoscience abounded during the pandemic when the population was at its most vulnerable. That was the correct decision at the time. With little moderation, Twitter/X is not a comfortable platform any longer.

Can you remember the absolute NONSENSE you'd see on twitter. I mean seriously. And it was moderated? ? WoW.

We're talking the US here though, right?

And OFCOM had guidelines here.

And we still saw total nonsense on SM.

CouchCat · 05/12/2023 08:02

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 06:58

I saw a Twitter employee agreeing that, yes, they did remove some content at the request of the US Government. I'm not perturbed by that, though, given how much dangerous pseudoscience abounded during the pandemic when the population was at its most vulnerable. That was the correct decision at the time. With little moderation, Twitter/X is not a comfortable platform any longer.

Can you remember the absolute NONSENSE you'd see on twitter. I mean seriously. And it was moderated? ? WoW.

We're talking the US here though, right?

And OFCOM had guidelines here.

And we still saw total nonsense on SM.

Right. Imagine if Twitter/X today was the platform when the pandemic was in full swing - absolute mayhem.

Twitter was/is a private company. It is their right to control the content on their site and apply moderation. It also has advertisers that have the ability to apply pressure, and it also exists within the confines of governments that have differing expectations of content.

CouchCat · 05/12/2023 08:05

@CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau

Just so I know @Jumpingthruhoops (although @CouchCat feel free to answer) were the words used “conform to the narrative”? Or was it more, as CouchCat says, countering dangerous pseudoscience.

It isn't clear from that clip, but it did seem to tip more to the 'pseudoscience' side.

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 08:45

Ironically, If everyone gave as much weight or credence to the consensus opinion of scientifically educated doctors as MsMace appears to in that clip, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

IClaudine · 05/12/2023 10:09

Hey @PhoneChargerCable any chance of linking to the stats you posted about?

Jumpingthruhoops · 05/12/2023 14:47

CouchCat · 05/12/2023 04:34

@Jumpingthruhoops

Firstly, there's a massive difference in asking a straight-forward question and interrupting before someone has a chance to answer, and asking a straight-forward question, and interrupting when it immediately becomes clear that person is not going to give anything even vaguely resembling a straight answer. You know that, right?
How does it immediately become clear if the person speaking is immediately interrupted? I would have respected Mace more if she had let Gadde speak. She didn't. The person with the most airtime in that clip was .. Mace.

I said information was hidden, posters asked for (or rather demanded!) proof. Well, how much more proof do you need than video evidence of a Twitter employee admitting they did this??
I saw a Twitter employee agreeing that, yes, they did remove some content at the request of the US Government. I'm not perturbed by that, though, given how much dangerous pseudoscience abounded during the pandemic when the population was at its most vulnerable. That was the correct decision at the time. With little moderation, Twitter/X is not a comfortable platform any longer.

I'd probably stop now, if I were you. Your argument is falling apart like a cheap suit!
Is it? I'm not trying to make an argument, anyway. This is simply how I see it.

Oh, so now a different opinion is 'pseudoscience'. I give up! 🤦🏼‍♀️

You seem to be getting very wrapped up in semantics. 'Moderated', 'silenced', 'censored', 'hidden'... they are all different ways of essentially saying the same thing: that anyone (including experts!) with a different opinion on Covid/the Covid response WAS silenced and such content WAS hidden. Which people on this thread have categorically said was NOT happening. When this confirms it absolutely was. This would include official data on vaccine harms.

Regardless of what they can do as a private company, Twitter had ZERO right, morally, to silence actual medical professionals. Those considering taking the vaccine were/are entitled to all the information, regardless of how unpalatable it might be.

So, with all that being said, are you saying you believe expert testimony should be moderated? A simple yes or no will suffice...

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 15:15

Those considering taking the vaccine were/are entitled to all the information, regardless of how unpalatable it might be.

Or how inaccurate it might be 🤷‍♀️ obvs

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 15:17

So, with all that being said, are you saying you believe expert testimony should be moderated? A simple yes or no will suffice...

Adore how you have set yourself up as the actual moderator of this thread.
@Jumpingthruhoops

It's priceless.

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 15:26

they are all different ways of essentially saying the same thing: that anyone (including experts!) with a different opinion on Covid/the Covid response WAS silenced and such content WAS hidden. Which people on this thread have categorically said was NOT happening. When this confirms it absolutely was.

This proves Twitter was moderated by the US Gov.

Does that in your mind equal ,everything everywhere was , then?

Don't bother answering.I think we've got the gist.

@Jumpingthruhoops

Interests me that there are medical experts available to the general public, with opinions that fly in the face of consensus medicine and always have been. They're available on You Tube for example.

They have quite the following.

I wonder how they weren't moderated out of the picture.

Don't bother answering .

Jumpingthruhoops · 05/12/2023 15:35

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 15:17

So, with all that being said, are you saying you believe expert testimony should be moderated? A simple yes or no will suffice...

Adore how you have set yourself up as the actual moderator of this thread.
@Jumpingthruhoops

It's priceless.

Since that reply wasn't to you, I have no idea why you're piping up. But, OK, I'll bite. Not moderating the thread at all. Just asking a poster for a straight answer to a straightforward question.

I think it's very telling that you've taken the time to reply with (yet another) dig when you could also have taken the opportunity to answer that question yourself, since you've been one of the most vocal in denying that certain information was suppressed during the pandemic. Which that one testimony alone proves it was.

But I totally understand that absolutely no part of you wants to admit that I've been right all along.
I get it. I'd be pissed off too if I were you. But I'm not. Thank God! 😁

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 15:48

Since that reply wasn't to you, I have no idea why you're piping up. But, OK, I'll bite. Not moderating the thread at all. Just asking a poster for a straight answer to a straightforward question.

Full moderator mode. You can't help yourself.

think it's very telling that you've taken the time to reply with (yet another) dig when you could also have taken the opportunity to answer that question yourself, since you've been one of the most vocal in denying that certain information was suppressed during the pandemic. Which that one testimony alone proves it was.

That one testimony proves ALL OF THAT ??

It's very telling that you presume that and then on that premise, feel I should have prioritised answering your question. ( moderator mode obviously )

No Ta. Don't agree with first assumption anyway.

But I totally understand that absolutely no part of you wants to admit that I've been right all along.

😂👌🏼Chefs Kiss

I get it. I'd be pissed off too if I were you. But I'm not. Thank God! 😁

😂👌🏼Chefs Kiss

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 15:49

For the record Posters can pipe up whenever they want.

@Jumpingthruhoops

Enraging I know

CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau · 05/12/2023 15:59

OK I don’t have much that’s new to contribute but my side-eye has reached France.

sunglassesonthetable · 05/12/2023 16:05

I don't think you've put a good case for much at all @Jumpingthruhoops

Twitter was censored/moderated by the US Gov.

This doesn't show vaccine injury ( which exists ) is more prevalent than it's been reported. It could be. But you haven't got anything to show it.

And please don't ever mention manners again on this thread. 😄🤦‍♀️

Let's face it @IClaudine you're going to be waiting a while for that info.

IClaudine · 05/12/2023 16:15

Yep, pretty much 🦗🦗🦗 in terms of a response from @PhoneChargerCable

IClaudine · 05/12/2023 17:18

I have found stats, btw but they really don't tally with what @PhoneChargerCable was saying, especially the "huge number of strokes and cardiac arrests causing deaths of late". The stats I have don't show a massive increase since the introduction of the vaccine.

So @PhoneChargerCable you show me your source and I'll show you mine...