On the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines

I originally wrote the below within 24 hours of putting up the post  "If COVID-19 vaccines are so safe why the necessity for blanket liability protection?". I never posted it because I thought it was too easy for others to take it out of context and claim I was supporting the COVID-19 vaccine. The risk-reward just wasn't there. I didn't want to spend additional time defending what I said when Western Civilization is collapsing around us. There are bigger battles to fight. One of them being that the government shouldn't be ordering us to wear masks or promote the vaccination.

My perspective was and continues to be that the data we have is not put in context so we don't know enough about the vaccine, positive or negative, (but that it is certainly absurd for anyone under 60 to take the shot). Further, I am highly suspicious of the reports of the safety of the vaccine. 

But even my original post has now garnered the claim that I was pro-vaccine and changing my view.

At a new post, FDA Approves Vaccine for 12 to 15 Year Olds, a commenter, "just right" makes the claim that  "your philosophical foundation is weak and muddled, changing positions 180 degrees within a week. Pitiful really, our thought leaders."

I haven't changed anything. In response at the post, I note that the commenter either has a "reading comprehension problem or is deliberately misleading by not providing full context." (See the post for my full response.)

I am proud of the fact, as I have stated before, that I immediately called out logical errors on both sides of the COVID-19 discussion (See: A Serious Problem With Richard Epstein's Optimistic Case On the Spread of COVID-19 and Will 2.2 Million Americans Die From COVID-19?).

So with the above in mind, I am now publishing what I originally wrote. I have no doubt that I will have to defend myself from a distortion master who twists my words when I am really trying to stick to the logic of the thing wherever it takes me. 

But at the request of JMJ, I will publish my responses to original commenters although I really do not want to generally spend a lot of time going down a rabbit hole where the problems in the arguments appear obvious to me and the battle is greater -RW

 I want to follow up on some of the comments left at the post "If COVID-19 vaccines are so safe why the necessity for blanket liability protection?"

Commenter A:

You agree the vaccines appear to be risky, and I say that in this case: risky = dangerous. Add to this the abundant circumstantial evidence of pharma cronyism and a government belching deceit, deceit, deceit, for a year now with no end in sight, etc., and I think the ground is solid enough to call this "vaccine" dangerous. 

 RW: I said the vaccines appear to be risky. That is far from saying they are risky or dangerous. Once again we don't have full context and data to properly evaluate the risks.

Government cronyism proves nothing, ZERO about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines. Though cronyism could cause the government to hide negative effects but cronyism is not proof of ineffectiveness or danger.

Commenter B:

Dr Lidiya Angelova – Microbiologist in a three part (so far) article makes the point about these mRNA “vaccines” for C-19, which induce creation of the virus Spike protein, can, have and will cause health issues for recipients. And as the title eludes for those receiving blood donated by the vaccinated.

“We should have the right to refuse blood transfusions from vaccinated for COVID-19 but can we?”
https://genuineprospect.com/2021/04/27/we-should-have-the-right-to-refuse-blood-transfusions-from-vaccinated-for-covid-19-but-can-we-part-1/

RW:

She links to this tweet:

The head of #AstraZeneca's oncology research team dies of #prion disease.

What are the odds of that?#COVIDVaccines @Parsifaler @richardursomd @MdFynn https://t.co/KadvBJbaby

— Dr Ah Kahn Syed (@arkmedic) April 26, 2021

This is anecdotal evidence at best. There is no indication how long Dr. Baselga was ill or even if he received a COVID-19 vaccine. According to the CDC, infection with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (which reports indicate he died from), kills about a million people a year.

Baselga was  AstraZeneca’s head of oncology research, so who the hell knows what he touched? Equipment exposed to prions (Creutzfeldt-Jakob is a subset) is extremely difficult to sterilize.

If we hear about many other cases, it might indicate a problem but a medical professional publishing one case, in order to prove danger (especially from someone who could have been exposed to prion many ways) is absurd.

Another tweet she links to is a paper of hers which is a completely speculative piece.

#Science #COVID19 #COVID19Vaccine
"The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations."
Prions can lead to multiple diseases. Prions can pass in the blood.https://t.co/0TA5GJ9pAU

— Dr Lidiya Angelova (@angelovalidiya) April 27, 2021

She concludes her speculative paper this way:

Many have raised the warning that the current epidemic of
COVID-19 is actually the result of an bioweapons attack released
in part by individuals in the United States government [10,11].
Such a theory is not far fetched given that the 2001 anthrax attack
in the US originated at Fort Detrick, a US army bioweapon facility.
Because the FBI’s anthrax investigation was closed against the
advice of the lead FBI agent in the case, there are likely conspirators
still working in the US government. In such a scenario the primary
focus of stopping a bioweapons attack must be to apprehend the
conspirators or the attacks will never cease. Approving a vaccine,
utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is
extremely dangerous. The vaccine could be a bioweapon and even
more dangerous than the original infection.

She may be entirely correct about everything she writes but by her putting all this stuff out there without data or any other kind of evidence, I have to classify her as a nutjob.

Commenter C:

Regarding the blanket liability protection: we aren't in a free market.

These products are coerced on us (schools, work, and soon possibly more). Just yesterday CT removed its religious exemption. Here in CA, I can’t even send my kids to a private school without the full CDC recommended schedule.

Debate regarding vaccine safety or the covid shot is not tolerated. It's dogma or a religion at this point... "vaccines are safe and effective".

RW:

What does this have to do with my post? I never address any of this. My point was simply that the government-issued blanket immunity does not mean the vaccines aren't safe. 

Commenter C:

Most (ALL?) of these covid jabs were at least partially funded by the US Government who then grants the liability protection (but the profits are private of course). To protect their investment (and for other reasons), alternative medical options have been suppressed and in many cases made illegal. If Ford receives blanket liability protection I still have the option of buying a Toyota or other brand. In this case those options were denied to people. Why?

RW:

Again, what does this have to do with my post? Just because the government funds something doesn't mean it is not safe. 

Commenter C:

What evidence do you have that anything has changed since Harvard Medical Schools findings that less than 1% of adverse events are reported?

I can’t help but think of this story: https://www.targetliberty.com/2021/04/a-covid-19-vaccine-tip.html. Do you think that doctor is aware of VAERS and files reports for suspected adverse reactions?

 RW:

The study was pre-COVID hysteria. It was done in 2000. You can't possibly be serious in thinking there is not more focus and reporting negative reactions to COVID-19 vaccines when it is in the headlines and people are reporting more negative reactions and medical institutions are very likely to be reporting more reactions that would have been waved off 21 years ago, if only for CYA reasons.

Commenter C:

Regarding your point about the mechanisms:

What video’s or articles are you referring to and what logical errors were made?

Why should we accept the theories being put forward by Moderna, Phizer, J&J, Fauci, the CDC, but not other doctors or those with the knowledge to speak intelligently on the matter? Who has the more honest track record? What motives do each of these parties have?

 RW:

Well, let me put it this way. All the videos and papers that I have seen claiming the COVID vaccines are dangerous, and that is most of the popular ones, contain errors. If you think there is one that is logical and backed up by data send it to me and I will take a look. 

As for Moderna, Pfizer and J&J, where did I say they were trustworthy?

As for motives as to why somebody puts out a video claiming the vaccine is dangerous, I don't care. I am only looking at the logic and the data.

Commenter C:

I can’t recall who (may have been Dr. Sherri Tenpenny or someone interviewed on The Highwire) raised the concern of the covid shots causing the immune system to attack the cells that line the placenta. But, then we see this: https://www.targetliberty.com/2021/04/are-covid-19-vaccines-causing-abnormal.html#comment-form. Doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening, but certainly worth looking into.

 RW:

Well, that's a great start, "Dr. Tenpenny or someone." Please provide references and if it is a video the exact time stamp when a claim is made. 

Notice, I used a question mark in the title of my post that you reference.

I am not making any claims. I am pretty much reporting a study is being conducted but further, this is a study about menstrual cycles, not placentas.

Did Tenpenny "or someone" comment on menstrual cycles?

Commenter C:

Interview with Dr. Bhakdi regarding blood clots and more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPjAfNNA-U

 RW:

This has been sent to me in the past by others but there is no sound when the doctor speaks.

---

Thanks to all of you for your comments.

BOTTOM LINE THIS IS MY TAKE: There is no convincing evidence one way or the other, that I have seen, that the vaccines are safe or effective.

But, the "good" news is that apparently 150 million Americans, without sound science backing the vaccine, have taken it. As I have said before, this is a massive study. I am going to sit back 5 to 10 years to see what happens. Though I hasten to add that I don't see any reason for most to get the vaccine, given that the virus appears to be almost exclusively a life-threatening virus for the very elderly who are obese or  already seriously ill. 

 -RW