Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
No bio...
User ID: 648
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
9mo ago
Inflammation from widely distributed nanoparticles. Look up inflammation, its complicated.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
An induction stove can affect some pacemakers if someone is COMPLETELY up against the stove and the pot is not covering the pad completely. Touching the pot creates a circuit (a long touch), and the pace maker will switch modes.
Interesting share.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
I guess that was part of the show. Vaccines were already so safe and bullet proof, people cannot notice when one that's 10x dangerous is released, and information censored online, and physicians told to be disinterested.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Novavax is a novel virus-like particle. I personally would much prefer Novavax over mRNA, and probably over adenovirus vectors.
I just don't like the threat of heart problems that mRNA presents. Such a large, dark downside to the products, to remodel your heart.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Most of my vitriol came from my education. I've been wear of mRNA since summer 2020 when it was announced as a candidate. I've taken undergraduate STEM, but most importantly, I worked with "science and technology studies," where we looked into a century of scientific ethical dilemmas.
So many people got the vaccine when they were told it would stop transmission - I had read the original clinical paper, and saw this was a messy conclusion. Then data from Israel came out that protection was waning, then the censorship began, and later on the mandating piggy backed on the censorship of waning efficacy.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Agree with this.
I think Omicron is a large narrative tool.
Omicron is so much more deadlier than Delta because of its transmissibility, but this translates to less threat to each individual. I always grin when I see people "celebrating" omicrons rise, or remark how they avoided nastier variants, and now play host to the most transmissible pathogen in recent years. If you can catch a cold, once again, that means a 90 year old in a nursing home can catch it too.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Thanks for coming in and adding your input. I would note to all readers that Chrisprattalpha and I had a more detailed vaccine back-and-forth that I thought was productive. Mr. Alpha linked to it in his post.
Overall I disagree with the idea of the "very safe" label. People should go look at our previous exchange to see where I disagree.
As for the vaccines, if they don't update them I'm not planning to bother unless forced to by my employer.
Well, once conventional vaccine alternatives are available to "tic" the box, I would much rather choose protein adjuvanted injections over job loss.
I have not been exposed to mRNA, so it makes a lot more sense for someone like me to be choosier, rather than someone who has taken a more novel method of vaccination.
And we're all getting Covid-19.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Well yes. But those last hold outs were the hardest to get. They resisted the "the vaccine protects you from other people" misconceptions of herd immunity being pushed. It's an important percentage, and without mandates, the data gaps would have been ammo for the "dissenters" of public health.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
A new New York State Covid-19 Dataset was released a few days ago. I thought it was a good opportunity to see the progress of the vaccination campaign. I think it's great data for an attack on the performative ritual of getting 'vaccinated' to encourage others to get vaccinated as well (which is what a lot of people were convinced to do). Obviously, those who got vaccinated to "protect other people" stand on shakier ground now.
First, let's establish something important. mRNA vaccines have a established, not fully understood connection to peri-myocarditis. mRNA can cause heart damage in a way that other vaccines seem to avoid. I would say this is an important explanation for the following data:
Percent of New Yorkers ages 18 and older with completed vaccine series - 85.5%
We all know how this was done. OSHA directed mandate, NYC mandate, banning people from shows, restaurants, bars until they receive an EUA injection, healthcare worker mandate, bribing people 100$ a shot. Science communication and incentives couldn't get people to take a novel vaccination method. NYS is almost 20% unionized, and the mandate was really helpful in boosting the low minority vaccination rate, since so many of those individuals work unionized, mandated jobs.
Now that these incentives are gone, let's see what the uptake is:
**Percent of all New Yorkers who are up to date - 14.1%
**
Most New Yorkers ignore CDC guidance now. Covid-19 will be gone in a few years. Covid-19 will be retired as a word for "novel entry of pathogen SARS-2," SARS-2 will be renamed HC-391237 or OC-32871 (random examples) or something, and the "covid-19 vaccine" will be rightly seen as a genetic version of a "flu shot" like intervention.
Consumers who want "flu shot" like vaccines, will eventually come to prefer conventional, protein adjuvanted vaccination methods.
Why would a 19 year old ever get an mRNA injection, when they could get a shot of Covaxin? The main purpose of the shot being to end the harassment from the public health infrastructure, and gain employment or education.
**Percent of New Yorkers ages 0-4 with completed vaccine series - 7.9%
**
This makes me think the vaccine could be seen as dangerous to parents. Keep in mind that all high-risk (on ventilator) children have probably been vaccinated, but some likely have not.
The vaccine campaign was a performance. Young healthy people were asked by the CDC to pretend that genetic Covid-19 vaccination was completely benign and well understood, with the goal of ultimately getting high-risk patients to take the higher risk vaccine.
If 20-29 year olds were allowed to say "no, that vaccine causes heart damage, obviously not worth getting," skepticism would trickle up to individuals who should arguably take advantage of the more advanced vaccination method. May the benefits outweigh the risks. No one believes in "do no harm" in the age of state-mandated genetic injections.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Yes. Imagine someone saying "Let's try injecting the antigens into their heart!"
Well, we know the mRNA enters the bloodstream, so it could transfect any cell...
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Well, the carbohydrates will not fold into a protein. Carbohydrates mainly going to enter the blood stream as glucose, simple principle of digestion and metabolism in human physiuology.
Using your muscle cells, vs. using one of your cardiac muscle cells, is why you do not want mRNA droplets in your blood stream interacting non-specifically with your organs
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
While it may not be appropriate to call it astroturfing, I wanted to point out that it is uncommon to see a detailed pro-vax analysis on the motte. It uses very quick "off lamps" that are supported by fact checking / expert trust / credentialling institutions.
Rather than say AstroTurf, I'd say there is a peppering of shallow, short cut arguments that never develop fully into an authentic, organic long form idea.
Agreed, I will be much more careful to use a short cut like that, and avoid needless linking to an outgroup that's not the main topic of my concern.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
This is not the right take.
You should be much more concerned about the size, shape, and ability to move through your body compartments with a Vaccine, than with a virus entering your mucosa.
The virus, if anything, is very limited by ACE2 receptors, whereas the lipid nature of the mRNA droplet allows it to merge into literally any cell and make it into an antigen producing cell. Much more than ACE2
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
This is a strong candidate for a contributing factor to deaths. For example, I'd argue that loss of job due to a vaccine mandate will carry worse outcomes than actually receiving a vaccine, or getting Covid unvaccinated. So in a way, our own public health response could be responsible for causing harm to people
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
This is not all proven - the vaccine entering body tissues because there's no known characterization of nanolipid particle pharmacokinetics is the main issue her. There's no concentrated ACE2 receptor in testicles, but the nanolipid particle will be exposed to the testicles via the blood stream (at the testicle blood barrier, which the vaccine can cross).
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
I want to make a separate point to bring up your blue tribe distinction.
Every time Covid-19 vaccines come up, very low level "pro-vax" discussion starts occurring. I see extremely washingtonpost or Foxnews tier discussion of these products.
If you check my post history, I have a complete throw down against the mRNA products. Currently, the pro-vax perspectives coming in this thread could have been completed by Reuters fact checks or some other political organization.
So, I offer the following:
-
Astroturfing in the provax camp is occurring on the Mott OR
-
Only less educated, less biologically inclined 'pro-vaxxers' are appearing in these threads with years old talking points and critical obfuscations of what happened during the mRNA / adenovirus vaccination campagin.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
"Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease) and trial registries were searched up to May 2022"
This is old data now, and every single undetected case of Coronavirus during that time period was not counted into that rate. This is what all the health authorities used to make light of the heart damage that mRNA can cause, just like you are doing now. There's incidentally been hundreds of millions of natural infections since then, undetected, making the rate of myocarditis by covid essentially become asymptotic to 0 as everyone becomes naturally immune, possibly twice.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/
Here's a post-mortem that shows the same WBC in your injection site, infiltrating the tissue of the heart and causing sudden death. You must not keep up with Pathology journals about people found dead after the mRNA vaccination, or they're not talked about or published in your countries.
"The relative risk (RR) for myocarditis was more than seven times higher in the infection group than in the vaccination group"
Even at best: you're telling me we are giving a vaccine that causes heart damage, only one order of magnitude less than a novel clade of beta-coronavirus that spilled out so fast we couldn't even count all the cases? And that's a good thing?
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Good point, Sweden is doing well despite giving the mRNA vaccines. I'm happy you found a single western country that used mRNA and is not experiencing a precipitous increase in death. And they have excellent foresight to avoid giving risky vaccines to children.
I know Sweden acknowledges that the risks of the vaccines are only useful when comparing against the risks of the virus.
"Conspiracy theorists." Why are you drawing conclusion on a single countries demographics? This is not a good faith accusation to people who are worried the novel mRNA vaccine is causing unnecessary morbidity and mortality, even Sweden has decided to stop putting children at risk. Is this responsible for their better mortality statistics? Hard to tell but I know you need to update your priors here.
There is a radical difference in allowing 5 year olds, and 12 years olds, to receive nanolipid particle injections. And you failed to mention that.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Inaccurate. If you look at the mRNA vaccines in particular, they can cause a heart condition that can cause death. Its a well recognized condition called peri-myocarditis. Are those deaths worth protection from covid? That's the argument that's falling apart right now.
"Lingering effects of novel viral illnesses have been well-documented" Did you mean to use the word novel? There are lingering effects possible of all viral illnesses, not just novel ones. I would not compare this to Spanish Flu, compare it to The Russian Flu/Corona of 1800s..
The idea that nascent respiratory infection would have killed someone that had a "mild" reaction to the mRNA is completely unsupported, and conveniently forgets the introduction of the novel nanolipid particle that delivered this first generation vaccine.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
People entering the medical system and producing positive incidental Covid-19 infections are already likely to be sick.
"It was based upon nearly 154,000 patients with Covid (median age 60, 90% male)"
How can this be related to a 21 year olds decision to avoid getting a mRNA vaccine, known to have cardiac side effects, when the study looks at an already unhealthy patient population?
Not even trying anymore, Mr. Topol may be right that Covid causes problems, but his whole basis reeks of damage control.
The vaccines, with their side effects, need a deadly disease to be worthwhile giving. We are riding out the last days of accepting a chance of heart damage to be immunized against a contagious disease that you get exposed to at the bar, grocery store, and in your home.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Fair, I'm not going to rip off my wallpaper over elderly and at risk people receiving bivalent vaccines - precisely because I have a calculation of their quality life years remaining, that is very different from younger healthy people.
The exact people who benefit from a covid vaccine have less quality life years to live than those who do not.
The vaccine has a novel, not totally understood method of mRNA translation, and then goes through another not completely understood process of protein folding, and then enters the immune system (not completely understood). The pharmacokinetics of the nano lipid particle are not characterized or understood. And there is a concerning signal of a blood clot appearing in patient's brains.
I am not scare mongering, I am being highly critical, since I'm not the one defending the novel RNA transfection vaccines.
When they run trials for new vaccines, they will compare them to the harms that the RNA transfection vaccines caused, and the new vaccines are going to look amazing. My guess is they will use protein-adjuvanted methods.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
Your response didn't address the crux of FDA and EUA labelling. The entire power structure of our country, legal recourse and all, rests along these lines. Sorry to bring Foucault into the mix, but he's the ultimate nightmare of a public health pandemicist.
There are no data available on the interchangeability of COMIRNATY with COVID-19 vaccines from other manufacturers to complete the vaccination primary series. Individuals who have received 1 dose of COMIRNATY should receive a second dose of COMIRNATY to complete the vaccination series.
Is this not VERY different from the medical advice given to people getting the EUA? Mix and match the first vial you can even get your hands on?
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
The vaccines are dangerous precisely because we are analyzing and looking for hidden harm, after we already administered a billion doses without fully understanding the consequences and outcomes.
mRNA cardiovascular toxicity is a severe problem and if it's at all likely, the hammer should drop. This "blip" is an 18 year old about to get mandated with mRNA bivalents before going to a community college.
Inflamed_Heart_Liberal
1yr ago
No there's a meaningful legal, judicial, and regulatory framework surrounding those vials. And the public health vaccination campaign.
Didn't the Speaker of the House say there should be "uprisings all over." That means when a police station in Fort Green Brooklyn was overrun by a mob, and their vehicles torched with molotovs, it was a violent overthrow of the normal functioning of the judicial branch.
I just think leftists only apply this histrionic analysis in service of their own political goals, you are a great example.
More options
Context Copy link