COVID vaccine? Does it do anything?

[Greybottle]

I jumped at getting the COVID vaccines when they came out and I got all the vaccines that I was eligible for to date except for this year.

I got COVID in the summer time and I wasn't able to get the vaccine this winter. My GP recommended a 4 month wait.

It's just I got COVID twice. Once in 2022 and I had that bad too. I wasn't hospitalised but still I was ill with fever, body aches, headaches and coughs for over a week. I was rushed back to work prepaturely when I still wasn't 100% better.

I got COVID this summer too. I was floored with it.

A lot of people were floored with it this summer. Even though we got the COVID vaccines.

It's just I got a reminder text to book the vaccine today and I just don't know.

I am not anti vaccine but what is the point of the vaccine when youre still going to get exposed and become ill to this anyways?

I got flu in 2004 or 2005 and I was getting flu vaccine because of my work from about 2008 and I never had flue since 04/05. The flu vaccine works. But I am questioning the COVID vaccine? What is the point of going out of my way to travel to an establishment to get jabbed and sore for a few days and if I am exposed to COVID, I am likely still going to get it.

sorry, who was looking for stuff on youtube?

https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccination-syndrome-indicate-future-research-directions

You do know that anything negative you link will STILL be removed and people will STILL tell you you are an ill informed ant vaxxer who gets all their info from a random on youtube?
Whatever you post, if it's not glowing endorsements it will go.

I've been looking at the DM article.

"The full results of the small study have not yet been published, and the Yale experts emphasized the results 'are still a work in progress.'
Yet the findings, from a well-respected institution, suggest more research on post-vaccination syndrome is needed, independent experts said."

And

"Dr Akiko Iwasaki, study author and immunologist at Yale University, said: 'This work is still in its early stages, and we need to validate these findings.
'But this is giving us some hope that there may be something that we can use for diagnosis and treatment of PVS down the road.'"

It goes on to point out that the study isn't peer reviewed.

Then further comment
"
The study's main limitation was its small size, Dr Gregory Poland, emeritus editor of the journal Vaccine and president of Atria Research Institute, told the New York Times.
However, he added: 'Despite these limitations, they found interesting data that need further study.

'Much larger studies of very carefully defined and phenotyped individuals [genetically analyzed] need to take place.'"

And

"Our responsibility as scientists and clinicians is to listen to their experiences, rigorously investigate the underlying causes, and seek ways to help.'

Dr John Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved in the research, urged caution about the data and said it's possible some of the excess spike protein may be from undetected Covid infections.

He told The New York Times: 'I would like to see more data on this topic" "

He told The New York Times: 'I would like to see more data on this topic" "
yes, so would I

Me too....
I know a few vaccine injured people and if this small study leads to knowing how to help them then I'm all for it.
Ditto with people with long COVID.
These researchers are studying both.

@Mightymoog

Why? @Sortumn has pointed out that the study isn’t peer reviewed and is small scale. What wrong with that?

This was in response to your comment about the Daily Mail report being unbalanced. While the direct source is always better, the Daily Mail caveated the findings very carefully with comments from the researchers and other commentators, as you can see from the direct quotes that I took from the article.

In answer to the OP's original question, does the vaccine do anything? Yes a little. The measured efficacy (Absolute Risk Reduction) against mild to moderate Covid symptoms in the original trials was around 0.85%.

But we now know know that there were significant problems that were covered up in those original trials (Pfizer wanted to keep the data hidden for 75 years), and that the risk profile is such that to give it to anyone but the elderly or vulnerable almost certainly does more harm than good.

We were lied to repeatedly at the roll-out about the vaccines ability to prevent transmission. We were lied to repeatedly about the degree of immunity already gained through a naturally acquired infection with Covid. And the independent data (if you choose to look) is now quite overwhelming, that we are now being repeatedly lied to about the level of significant side effects that have come to pass, many serious and life limiting.

Having worked in pharmaceutical industry marketing for many years, I know just how long these products normally take to develop, and short cuts, or running trials concurrently are just not possible without compromising a degree of long term patient safety. Procedures are there for a reason, and even then rouge products that do significant harm, sometimes slip through the net (e.g. Vioxx).

I do appreciate that everyone was in a panic at the time, but the evidence from The Diamond Princess showed clearly very early on clearly who exactly was at risk from Covid. We'd both had Covid before the vaccines were rolled out in any case, and it was mild, so on balance, my DH and I decided not to get vaccinated.

Given the information that has come out since, and the attempts by authorities to cover their tracks with censorship and propaganda, we are very glad we didn't succumb to the pressure and take it. It was pretty hard to hold out though, particularly with friends disowning us, being called names, and with threats made against us of not being able to travel, or not deserving of NHS care etc.

We are both very proud we stood firm.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/decades-making-mrna-covid-19-vaccines

Your information is incorrect - there weren’t short cuts in testing - the process took years.

Not sure why you would be proud for not having a life saving vaccine from an illness which has killed over 7m people.

How could there possibly not be shortcuts?
How were long term studies done in a few months?
How were studies performed on pregnant women and then followed up for the first year of the child ?
I'm talking about these specific injections: the ones where this technology had never been put in a human before?
I'm not surprised the pp is proud of themselves for not going along with it: so am I. I'm also glad i dissuaded my husband and flat out refused for my children.
It took some doing in the face of relentless fearmongering. propaganda and peer pressure
Well done to all who knew it was a bad idea

The people who took it were the long term trial subjects

mRNA vaccines were developed years ago and refined to Covid. They had already been used on other illnesses - that’s how virology works. There is plenty of scientific evidence of this.

Mrna was "trialled" in Africa against ebola.
( wonder why that was).
The only approved vaccine for ebola is NOT mrna based
wonder why that was
until covid they had never received approval from the USA , Uk or any other country for commercial use.
wonder why that was.
I asked about the long term studies done on the Mrna vaccines if you could expand on that please

Look at the link in my earlier post . Which virologists or scientists are the source of your research?

Which part of my post is not correct?

You appear to have linked to an article rather than a peer reviewed paper.
Was that an error? I'm more than happy to extract information from raw data etc. but many on here seem to insist on peer reviewed so you may want to change your link?

Christ the amount of times I see that shit almost word for word on SM. Talk about echo chambers.

But when you ask people do they know what mRNA is, they think it's something evil cooked up in a lab and alian to the human body.

Talk about loading swirls.

Why do you think you keep reading the same things?
Which part of that post is not true?
Would you like to enlighten us as to why they wanted 75 years to release the trial data?

But when you ask people do they know what mRNA is, they think it's something evil cooked up in a lab and alian to the human body.

Can I ask which people you are asking as the vast majority of adults I know are pretty well informed.

Same people who think bill gates wanted to inject tracking devices with the vaccine, that tom hanks is a clone, 5g is killing the trees, they all seem to copy/paste the same stuff almost word for word and all post the same links, at the same time from whatever YouTube tells them to. Like that daily mail link is the most recent.

They all also seem to be reform voters as well. Sucking off Nigel Farage like his the second coming. Because... 'heeel stoop the booooats'

I'm a little confused: the poster you're referring to doesn't mention Bill Gates/ killing trees or reform and also no mention on BOOOOATS ( I assume boats. Migration? Not sure how that links to Mrna vaccines; again , if you could enlighten me).

What part of what they said is untrue and could you give your explanation of why it was attempted to hide the clinical data for 75 years.

and I'm intrigued by the Tom Hanks reference!
Could you also explain what that is and how it has relevaence to people with questions about the safety and efficacy of the injections.
( I've never heard of it; you're obviously a lot better versed in conspiracy theories than I am!).

Also, can I assume that your response to any questions on the vaccines is to shout conspiracy theory in the hope that makes you right in some way?
Do you genuinely, hand on heart , think that all those who didn't want to have them are CT's who believe Bill gates wants to track them?
Do you really think that or is it just a lazy, tired and overused way to try and shut down discussion.
Fair enough if you do believe that, each to their own but it doesn't exactly fill one with confidence that an intelligent reasoned response is forthcoming

I'm a little confused

Is that why you're copy pasting the same stuff as every single conspiracy person is posting? Don't you have any original thinking instead of clinging on to headlines and sensational articles like the daily mail throw up to get people clicking?

The daily mail ffs. It's scraping the barrel of point proving.

I've copy and pasted about Bill gates/ trees/ 5g/ Booooaaats.
Gosh, must have been sleep typing!

Must have also been sleep reading the daily mail as i never read it.

What's your explanation on trying to hide clinical data for 75 years?

"How were long term studies done in a few months?
How were studies performed on pregnant women and then followed up for the first year of the child ?"

But we didn't have long-term studies of covid the disease either, yet somehow that's not a worry?

Anti-vax arguments that didn't rely so much on downplaying the disease itself would be easier to take seriously.

It's always a case of weighing up risks and it's always a gamble whether you decide on the vaccine or not. You can never get to a good answer by looking only at the risks of a vaccine and not also at the risks of the corresponding disease.

https://x.com/PutrinoLab/status/1892692141358383503