Adverse Side Effects from COVID Vaccines

Full disclosure: I have been doubly vaccinated with the Modern Vaccine.  I have trusted ubiquitous assertions by government and health care providers, that the vaccines are safe.  I knew that the vaccines were extraordinary quick to market.  I wondered about their safety, but I considered the COVID virus itself to be a much greater risk. I am extremely concerned about the existence of COVID and the devastation it has caused, medical and economic. I am extremely concerned about the potential emergence of variants and COVID.

Also, I have long been suspicious about the effects of tribal affinities on the free flow of information (on many topics). On topics related to the pandemic, there have been major reversals by medical authorities in the past 1 1/2 years that concern me. Some of these relate to the alleged efficacy (and non-efficacy) of mask-wearing, where government mandates were issued in the absence of controlled studies. I am also aware that we have seen very little in the way of data regarding adverse side effects regarding the general population, as well as populations of adolescents and immune-compromised and pregnant individuals. It is also apparent that the misinformation relating to the wearing of masks could be motivated by an inclination to downplay vaccine-related  deaths (in order to encourage people to get the vaccines on a nationwide basis).

It is in this context that I am sharing the following materials. I have no medical expertise.  I find the following information intriguing. I hope that this information (which has possibly been suppressed) is further developed in the public sphere.  Here is the basis for my concerns, a discussion hosted by Brett Weinstein, who has a long history of fearlessly discussing topics that run counter "preferred" public narratives.

The guests suggest that we need an honest conversation regarding use of the the COVID vaccines regarding certain populations where there is natural immunity (children, young teenagers and those who have already had COVID) and where there is alarming data (pregnant women). They also advocate that we badly need honest national dialogue regarding the promising data based on the prophylactic use of repurposed Ivermectin.

Here are two key points made during this deeply engaging discussion:

Point 1. An ongoing course of Ivermectin, long-shown to be a safe drug, is fantastically effective in protecting people from COVID. Brett notes that he and his wife Heather were not vaccinated, but have chosen to use Ivermectin prophylactically. Brett and the guests argue that where a safe alternative to the vaccines is available, this information should be available. The guests are convinced, based on discussed evidence, that Ivermectin is a potentially a "miracle drug" that should be widely repurposed and made available to the public. They are gravely concerned that discussions regarding Ivermectin have been suppressed on the Internet, for social and financial motives they discuss.

Today, I spotted these graphs regarding Ivermectin usage in India.  I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information in this June 1, 2021 article by Justus R. Hope, a doctor, but it is eye-popping and compels me to know more:

Another excerpt from this article:

A 97% decline in Delhi cases with Ivermectin is decisive - period. It represents the last word in an epic struggle to save lives and preserve human rights. This graph symbolizes the victory of reason over corruption, good over evil, and right over wrong. It is as significant as David’s victory over Goliath. It is an absolute vindication of Ivermectin and early outpatient treatment. It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC's policies of "wait at home until you turn blue" before you get treatment.

Point 2. On the vaccine side, the guests express concern that there are significant adverse side-effects to the COVID vaccines that are not being discussed widely. In fact, the information is being suppressed, the group strongly suggests, because it doesn't fit the ongoing narrative that the COVID vaccines are "safe." Further, the data regarding adverse side effects is not systematically being collected, much less discussed.  The conversation suggests that the VAERS database (voluntary reports) significantly under-reports incidents. Data suggest that the rate of deaths so far from the COVID vaccines in the U.S. might be in the range of 5,000-20,000, the lower end which is greater than the number of deaths from all other vaccines in the U.S. over the past 70 years. For further information on this point, consider Steve Kirsch's recent article at TrialSiteNews, where you will see many details on which he based his concerns in the above video: "Should You Get Vaccinated."  The guests also argue that silicon valley is actively suppressing youtube videos and other information. Adverse vaccine-related bloodwork seems to resemble the bloodwork of those who have COVID.  The biggest alarm here, the guests agree, is the lack of an alarm.

Here are a few excerpts:

However, based on what I now know about the vaccine side effects, current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, “Just say NO.”

The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say “NO! NO! NO!”

In this article, I will explain what I have learned since I was vaccinated that totally changed my mind. You will learn how these vaccines work and the shortcuts that led to the mistakes that were made. You will understand why there are so many side effects and why these are so varied and why they usually happen within 30 days of vaccination. You will understand why kids are having heart issues (for which there is no treatment), and temporarily losing their sight, and ability to talk. You will understand why as many as 3% may be severely disabled by the vaccine.

What I find deeply disturbing is the lack of transparency on how dangerous the current COVID vaccines are. Healthy people could end up dead or permanently disabled at a rate that is “off the charts” compared with any other vaccine in our history. Look at the death report in our government’s official Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) summarized in the tweet below. This is the most deadly vaccine we’ve ever made by a long shot. That’s why they have to give you incentives to get vaccinated. They need to vaccinate everyone BEFORE people read this article or watch this video of Dr. Peter McCullough explaining clearly why the current COVID vaccines are unsafe and completely unnecessary for our children.

Kirsch expresses special concerns with the risks of the COVID vaccines for pregnant women:

82% miscarriage rate in first 20 weeks (10% is the normal rate). It is baffling that the CDC says the vaccine is safe for pregnant women when it is so clear that this is not the case. For example, one our family friends is a victim of this. She miscarried at 25 weeks and is having an abortion on 6/9/21. She had her first shot 7 weeks ago, and her second shot 4 weeks ago. The baby had severe bleeding of the brain and other disfigurements. Her gynecologist had never seen anything like that before in her life. They called in a specialist who said it was probably a genetic defect (because everyone buys into the narrative that the vaccine is safe it is always ruled out as a possible cause). No VAERS report. No CDC report. Yet the doctors I’ve talked to say that it is over 99% certain it was the vaccine. The family doesn’t want an autopsy for fear that their daughter will find out it was the vaccine. This is a perfect example of how these horrible side effects just never get reported anywhere.

I invite you to listen to the detailed conversation in the video above. I'm writing this as I watch the live discussion. I will update with more after I finish viewing the entire video . . .

[June 12 2021 two updates]

I love this exchange between Steve Kirsch and hundreds of Youtube Subscribers who told him that they appreciated his passion and his message but warned him that his manners were rude and that he was getting in the way of his own message.

Second, Brett might have sounded paranoid (to those who don't know the abuse that he has suffered at the hands of social media corporations), but here it comes, just as Brett predicted:

Continue ReadingAdverse Side Effects from COVID Vaccines

Suggestion: Use the Phrase “News Filter” Instead of “News Source.”

A lot of our problems could be fixed if we stop using the term "news source" and start using the term "news filter." E.g., "I get my news from the NPR/MSNBC/NYT news FILTER." Or, "I utilize the FOX/Breitbart news filtering system." Or, if you are feeling feisty, use the full term, "Nanny Filter."

This suggestion is unlikely to be adopted by many in light of our prevailing Americhean (American + Manichean) zeitgeist.

Continue ReadingSuggestion: Use the Phrase “News Filter” Instead of “News Source.”

Lee Fang: One Year Ago

Lee Fang is an excellent reporter with a stellar track record.

Here is the video he posted one year ago that resulted in Fang's co-worker at The Intercept and New York Times politics reporter Astead Herndonand (and many others) calling him a racist. Fang was left twisting in the wind. Click the image to view the two-minute statement. Those reporters on the left who were not piling on to the accusations against Fang were completely silent. If you watch this video, you will see a thoughtful and nuanced statement. Lee Fang was called a racist for reporting this man's views along with many other varied viewpoints. Here's the problem: Every statement--every single one--must fit the narrative.

While Fang is a real reporter, these reactions (and non-reactions) of other journalists is the new version of journalism.

Continue ReadingLee Fang: One Year Ago

A Retrospective on COVID-Safe Protests

I'm still stunned by the silence of left-leaning media outlets at this hypocrisy so boldly committed in broad daylight.  Even a young child has the ability to see that risk of disease is risk of disease. Your political viewpoint has no relevance to your risk of contracting COVID in a large outdoor group. Yet dozens of experts hypocritically stepped forward, knowing that the left-leaning news media had their back.

Continue ReadingA Retrospective on COVID-Safe Protests

USA Today Unilaterally Removes “Hurtful Language” from a Female College Athlete’s Op-Ed

Chelsea Mitchell runs track at the college level. On May 22, USA Today published her Op-Ed in which she complained that runners who had "male bodies" are repeatedly and unfairly winning championships in women's college track meets. Three days after the publication of the Op-Ed, USA Today retroactively edited Chelsea Mitchell's Op-Ed, offering the following reasons as an editor's note:

Editor's note: This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY’s standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used.

I took the liberty of running a "compare" of the edited part of the original article (published in its original form by Alliance Defending Freedom) to the new version of the USA Today article, the one from which the "hurtful language" has been removed. The red corrections were the changes made by USA Today.

I don't understand what is factually inappropriate about saying that the MTF (male to female) transgender runners to some degree, retained "male bodies" if that is what Chelsea Mitchell (an accomplished athlete) observed. These are facts that are also strongly borne out by the stunning success of these runners when they are competing against the runners who are biologically female.  That is, in fact, the entire point of Chelsea Mitchell's Op-Ed. Apparently, she will not be allowed to make her argument in her own words.

Mitchell's article did not even once mention the vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless word, "gender." Her article was about the two sexes, male and female. Perhaps USA Today also finds basic biology principles hurtful, including this finding, which goes back for thousands of years: Mammals, including human animals, come in two and only two sexes, male (small gametes) and female (larger gametes) (and see this peer reviewed article.  There is not a third type of gamete.  Mitchell should be allowed to freely discuss and compare the competitive advantages of those with biologically male bodies versus those with biologically female bodies.  That said, this is 2021, and we are in the deep throes of Wokeness. 

Continue ReadingUSA Today Unilaterally Removes “Hurtful Language” from a Female College Athlete’s Op-Ed