Vaccine.. another sad story

[BountyIsUnderrated]

I've just read the below article, one little boy left without a mother and the poor father left alone to raise him.

There have been so many stories about this happening I don't know what to feel anymore.. I've been vaccinated myself but I can see why people are scared of the AZ.

It's rare yes but I don't think that would be very reassuring if someone I loved died... Is this the cost of protecting against covid?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9732583/Mother-three-47-dies-AstraZeneca-Covid-jab-caused-blood-clots-brain.html

@TheDailyCarbunkle

There are literally hundreds of articles *@ollyollyoxenfree*. Here's one of them: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833091/

To help you out, here are some relevant quotations:
Viruses are notoriously involved in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases [2], and the authors reasonably conclude that such a cross-reactivity might lead to the development of immune-mediated disorders in COronaVirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) patients in the long term. The authors also suggest that a similar scenario might take place following COVID-19 vaccination.
Vaccine-associated autoimmunity is a well-known phenomenon attributed to either the cross-reactivity between antigens or the effect of adjuvant [3]. When coming to COVID-19 vaccine, this matter is further complicated by the nucleic acid formulation and the accelerated development process imposed by the emergency pandemic situation [4]
Although the results from phase I and II/III studies have not raised serious safety concerns [5], the time of observation was extremely short and the target population not defined. Reported local and systemic adverse events seemed to be dose-dependent and more common in participants aged under 55 years. These results presumably depend on the higher reactogenicity occurring in younger people that may confer greater protection towards viral antigens but also predispose to a higher burden of immunological side effects.
The reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in individuals suffering from immune-mediated diseases and having therefore a pre-existent dysregulation of the immune response has not been investigated.
Besides the mechanism of molecular mimicry, mRNA vaccines may give rise to a cascade of immunological events eventually leading to the aberrant activation of the innate and acquired immune system.
Prior to the translation, mRNA may bind pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) in endosomes or cytosol. Toll-like receptor (TLR)3, TLR7 and TLR8 are able to recognize chains of double-stranded (ds)RNA or single-stranded (ss)RNA in endosomes, while retinoic acid-inducible gene-I (RIG-I) and melanoma differentiation-associated protein 5 (MDA5) may detect short and long filaments of dsRNA in the cytosol. The final result is the activation of several pro-inflammatory cascades, including the assembly of inflammasome platforms, the type I interferon (IFN) response and the nuclear translocation of the transcription factor nuclear factor (NF)-kB [7].
Importantly, the up-regulation of these immunological pathways is widely considered to be at the basis of several immune-mediated diseases, especially in genetically predisposed subjects who have an impaired clearance of nucleic acids.
Until proven otherwise, the administration of a nucleic acid vaccine may instead put these individuals at risk of unwanted immunological side effects by either sensitizing the PRRs or generating cross-reactive cell clones and antibodies. Moreover, COVID-19 mRNA vaccine might differently stimulate myeloid or plasmacytoid dendritic cells (DCs), generating an unbalance in the downstream cytokine pathways that play a crucial role in autoimmunity and autoinflammation [3].

I don't want to be a dick, but you're revealing your lack of knowledge here

There aren't hundreds of articles - you're not able to link one that demonstrates long term effects of mRNA vaccines.

The manuscript you've copied and pasted isn't an epidemiological or experimental study showing long term adverse effects of an mRNA vaccine, it's simply a hypothetical piece by a scientist discussing the potential events that could happen after coronavirus infection or vaccination. Do you understand the difference?

[quote Cindy974]ollyollyoxenfree

People are suffering horrendous long term effects but they are being censored. How is it okay to censor an individual’s experience with the vaccine whether it be good or bad?

t.co/fklMq9Cchy?amp=1[/quote]
I'm not censoring anything and I'm not saying that people don't have side effects that persist.

I am saying, repeatedly, that there is no evidence for effects that will emerge a long period after vaccination, nor is there a biological rationale for how this could occur.

[quote Cindy974]ollyollyoxenfree

People are suffering horrendous long term effects but they are being censored. How is it okay to censor an individual’s experience with the vaccine whether it be good or bad?

t.co/fklMq9Cchy?amp=1[/quote]
We shouldn't censor it (if they are real experiences) but neither does it help to have them sensationalised on Fox News or in the papers. It means they will have a far larger impact on people's perceptions and attitudes towards vaccination than they should have based on their rarity. The simple data should be enough.

Of course there isn't a long term study that shows the effects, because there isn't one. Do you understand that scientists use the knowledge they have, from previous research and their understanding of how the mRNA vaccine process works and then give an educated opinion, as in this article, about the likely long term effects? The whole discussion we have been having has been about the lack of data, what I'm saying to you is that there is evidence, as clearly outlined in that article, for potential long term effects. As I have said, in clear language, there is no way to know now whether those will come about. But the fact is that there is evidence, as I have linked to, that they could happen. I can link to all of the other articles that have led to that article but frankly I can't be bothered. If you believe the writer of that article is wrong for some reason, so be it. I believe they are basing their analysis on a detailed scientific understanding of past research and a knowledge of the technology. They aren't just pulling it out of the air.

I am saying, repeatedly, that there is no evidence for effects that will emerge a long period after vaccination, nor is there a biological rationale for how this could occur.

So @ollyollyoxenfree the articles that have shown a biological rationale, as the one I quoted above, do you believe they are made up or wrong or what?

@TheDailyCarbunkle

Of course there isn't a long term study that shows the effects, because there isn't one. Do you understand that scientists use the knowledge they have, from previous research and their understanding of how the mRNA vaccine process works and then give an educated opinion, as in this article, about the likely long term effects? The whole discussion we have been having has been about the lack of data, what I'm saying to you is that there is evidence, as clearly outlined in that article, for potential long term effects. As I have said, in clear language, there is no way to know now whether those will come about. But the fact is that there is evidence, as I have linked to, that they could happen. I can link to all of the other articles that have led to that article but frankly I can't be bothered. If you believe the writer of that article is wrong for some reason, so be it. I believe they are basing their analysis on a detailed scientific understanding of past research and a knowledge of the technology. They aren't just pulling it out of the air.

you have repeatedly stated @TheDailyCarbunkle that there are studies showing that mRNA cause adverse long term effects, I'm not really sure what else I can say here

Since you're now claiming that there aren't, I'm going to assume you've doubled back on that statement

@TheDailyCarbunkle

I am saying, repeatedly, that there is no evidence for effects that will emerge a long period after vaccination, nor is there a biological rationale for how this could occur.

So @ollyollyoxenfree the articles that have shown a biological rationale, as the one I quoted above, do you believe they are made up or wrong or what?

dear lord

The hypothetical molecular events described in the manuscript would not clinically manifest a long time later.

Oh I see you don't understand what the article is saying. That makes a bit more sense now. Yes, they would clinically manifest a long time later. Sorry I should have explained that. So when they say

Besides the mechanism of molecular mimicry, mRNA vaccines may give rise to a cascade of immunological events eventually leading to the aberrant activation of the innate and acquired immune system.

What they mean is that that cascade can happen over a period of time. It's described in other articles more clearly, but the result in chronic long term auto immune disorders. You can look it up if you like but I'm a bit tired of stating these things over and over and explaining them again and again.

The clue is 'eventually' in the quoted bit but they could be more explicit about it.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

Oh I see you don't understand what the article is saying. That makes a bit more sense now. Yes, they would clinically manifest a long time later. Sorry I should have explained that. So when they say

Besides the mechanism of molecular mimicry, mRNA vaccines may give rise to a cascade of immunological events eventually leading to the aberrant activation of the innate and acquired immune system.

What they mean is that that cascade can happen over a period of time. It's described in other articles more clearly, but the result in chronic long term auto immune disorders. You can look it up if you like but I'm a bit tired of stating these things over and over and explaining them again and again.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

I make a living in this area, I'm pretty familiar with the literature and fortunately I have good understanding otherwise I would be out of a job.

You are claiming that vaccines could cause effects that will not emerge until a long time period after vaccination and this is reason people should not be vaccinated until we have seen what happens with say, 2 years of follow up.

The hypothetical molecular mechanisms described in the paragraph you copied and pasted could hypothetically cause side effects that persist for a long time yes, but they wouldn't suddenly emerge as side effects 6 months after vaccination. That is the difference you're not understanding.

[quote Cindy974]ollyollyoxenfree

People are suffering horrendous long term effects but they are being censored. How is it okay to censor an individual’s experience with the vaccine whether it be good or bad?

t.co/fklMq9Cchy?amp=1[/quote]
@ Cindy974 In the interests of balance, can you also link to the evidence that the issues these people have sadly suffered were caused by vaccination against covid? There is much disquiet about that press conference and its veracity, because the senator who held it has form for being unreliable:

edition.cnn.com/2021/06/28/politics/senator-ron-johnson-vaers-covid-deaths/index.html

Just because something is on Fox News or YouTube does not = true.

[quote Cindy974]ollyollyoxenfree

People are suffering horrendous long term effects but they are being censored. How is it okay to censor an individual’s experience with the vaccine whether it be good or bad?

t.co/fklMq9Cchy?amp=1[/quote]
I don’t think ending up on Fox News (filming what seems to be some sort of committee hearing chaired by a member of the senate?) could possibly be described as being censored.

I'm glad I've refused everytime. It's not worth the risk.
The more people that can't wait to be jabbed will provide immunity, if it works.
However, people are catching covid who have had both jabs, for a while.

The hypothetical molecular mechanisms described in the paragraph you copied and pasted could hypothetically cause side effects that persist for a long time yes, but they wouldn't suddenly emerge as side effects 6 months after vaccination. That is the difference you're not understanding.

That's not what the literature says. It's not that they suddenly emerge after a while, is that they emerge slowly over time and don't become obvious for a time afterwards- hence the 'cascade' element. The FDA considered a link between mRNA vaccination and the later onset of rheumatoid arthritis for example - there's nothing conclusive on that one but there is a plausible mechanism for it to happen (as you would know, working in the area).

@gillysSong

I'm glad I've refused everytime. It's not worth the risk. The more people that can't wait to be jabbed will provide immunity, if it works. However, people are catching covid who have had both jabs, for a while.

The vaccines do not 100% prevent you getting Covid, that has never been in question. They reduce the risk. There will always be double jabbed people who contract the disease and even die from it. The NHS advice makes this clear:

Anyone who gets COVID-19 can become seriously ill or have long-term effects (long COVID). The COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to protect yourself and others.

Research has shown the vaccines help:

reduce your risk of getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19
reduce your risk of catching or spreading COVID-19
protect against COVID-19 variants

The 1st dose should give you some protection from 3 or 4 weeks after you've had it. But you need 2 doses for stronger and longer-lasting protection.

There is a chance you might still get or spread COVID-19 even if you have a vaccine, so it's important to continue to follow all social distancing guidance.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-vaccine/

The FDA considered a link between mRNA vaccination and the later onset of rheumatoid arthritis for example - there's nothing conclusive on that one but there is a plausible mechanism for it to happen

To bring up my earlier question again - how could this possibly be verified after a length of time and a lot of additional variables to rule out? What kind of time scales are we talking about for a legitimate link to be able to be established?

The FDA considered a link between mRNA vaccination and the later onset of rheumatoid arthritis for example - there's nothing conclusive on that one but there is a plausible mechanism for it to happen (as you would know, working in the area).

Can't find a scrap of evidence backing that claim up. Care to share a link @TheDailyCarbunkle

[quote Cindy974]ollyollyoxenfree

People are suffering horrendous long term effects but they are being censored. How is it okay to censor an individual’s experience with the vaccine whether it be good or bad?

t.co/fklMq9Cchy?amp=1[/quote]
they are literally on fox news? @Cindy974

speckledostrichegg

Censorship on YouTube,Facebook etc

It probably will be deleted from YouTube soon I mean

You're describing it as censored when it's on Fox News and hasn't been deleted from YouTube?

@Cindy974

speckledostrichegg

Censorship on YouTube,Facebook etc

It probably will be deleted from YouTube soon I mean

Honestly, now your being daft.

I don’t doubt there is censorship going on (and it’s debatable whether that’s a good or bad thing) there’s no need to start declaring censorship before it even happens.

Vaccine effects are not the only sad stories.

There are numerous stories of loss, health, wealth and mental.

Without vaccines the sad stories would keep on coming, day after day, in greater numbers.

Yes all premature loss is sad but to compare one vaccine reaction against all the others is incredulous.

I don't notice people posting every story about those whom lost their lives in their 40s, 50s to Covid. The bus drivers, hospital cleaners, where are these posts, they were parents, brothers, friends as well.

Bovrilly
Cornettoninja

One featuring a young girl from the same press conference has already been deleted.

@Cindy974

Bovrilly Cornettoninja

One featuring a young girl from the same press conference has already been deleted.

But not the one you linked.

Cornettoninja

And whats your point? I said people are being censored not that particular lady in question.