Wellness

[Lipstickdiva]

---

@Jersey Born wrote:

I am truly sorry that you have experienced blood clot induced strokes, and that you are living in fear from this lab-created virus. 

As the COVID shots do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus, you have as much to fear from the inoculated as you do from the uninoculated.  The inoculated can be asymptomatic carriers for the virus. If it is ever scientifically established that the inoculated are transmitting nano-sized spike proteins (that they are producing in their cells due to their injections) to other people via "inhalation or skin contact, then the uninoculated will have even more to fear from the inoculated, than the inoculated will have to fear from the uninoculated. A COVID shot trial from one on the manufacturers indicated concern about this possible transmission of the "study intervention" from skin or breath of the inoculated. 

---

I believe that the CDC recently said if you are vaccinated, you do not spread the virus. 

[Porcelain]

---

@Tessa Mendoza wrote:

Interesting article, @4kitties.  Thanks for posting.

@ Porcelain - Since I see you posting, I guess you got through the second Pfizer shot with minimum or maybe no side effects.  Hope so.  We go tomorrow.  Happy but kind of nervous.

---

How did it go, @Tessa Mendoza?

[Jersey Born]

The CDC saying something without proof does not make it a true statement @Lipstickdiva .  It is called a COVID-19 "vaccine", because the injections do not prevent infection nor stop transmission of the virus. The shots merely reduce symptoms of COVID illness.  SARS-CoV-2 is the virus.  COVID-19 is the illness that some, but not all people, experience after they are infected with SARS-CoV-2.  You never hear of the shots called SARS-CoV-2 vaccines do you?  That's the reason.

Dr. Peter Doshi (of the BMJ) explained how there is a problem of perception regarding the true efficacy of the shots available presently.  Relative risk reduction is what is being touted as 95- 100% efficacious, but absolute risk reduction is between 0.7% and 1.1%. That's quite a big difference in efficacy, and quite the deception.

From a new paper by Stephanie Seneff and Greg Nigh, called "Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19" published in the IJVTPR (International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research), it was explained (pages 404-405): "Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data released to the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna and Pfizer trials were deemed to be SARS-CoV-1-positive at baseline despite prior infection being grounds for exclusion. For these and other reasons the interim efficacy estimate of around 95% for both vaccines is suspect.A more recent analysis looked specifically at the issue of relative vs. absolute risk reduction. While the high estimates of risk reduction are based upon relative risks, the absolute risk reduction is a more appropriate metric for a member of the general public to determine whether a vaccination provides a meaningful risk reduction personally. In that analysis, utilizing data supplied by the vaccine makers to the FDA, the Moderna vaccine at the time of interim analysis demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% (p= 0.004), while the Pfizer vaccine absolute risk reduction was 0.7% (p<0.000) (Brown 2021)."

[Lipstickdiva]

Oh, Dr. Peter Doshi. The doctor who has spoken at antivaccine conferences.  

It would be smart for anyone interested to do a little research into Dr. Peter Doshi. 

[Jersey Born]

Peter Doshi is a brilliant researcher and he is a senior editor at the BMJ.  I guess you read things like Respectful Insolence and Skeptical Raptor, written by people too cowardly to disclose their names and take credit for their maligning smears? 

[Tessa Mendoza]

@ Porcelain -

Got the vaccine at 10:00 this morning and still feel OK at 1:30.   I've been moving my arm around and just feel a little soreness right now, but I'm guessing that will inrease as the day goes on.  But maybe not.  Who knows?  Just hoping any other side effects will be mild.  It feels good to have it over and know in 2 weeks life can resume.

Thanks for asking how it went and hope you are still feeling good!

[Drythe]

---

@Jersey Born wrote:

Peter Doshi is a brilliant researcher and he is a senior editor at the BMJ.  I guess you read things like Respectful Insolence and Skeptical Raptor, written by people too cowardly to disclose their names and take credit for their maligning smears? 

---

@Jersey Born 

Never heard of them.

But I’m familiar with Doshi, and what he is, and is not qualified to speak about.  The BJM is a journal of Economics.  

Very familiar with people too cowardly to take credit for their constant maligning smears, and who bring not one viable alternative.

[Porcelain]

---

@Tessa Mendoza wrote:

@ Porcelain -

Got the vaccine at 10:00 this morning and still feel OK at 1:30.   I've been moving my arm around and just feel a little soreness right now, but I'm guessing that will inrease as the day goes on.  But maybe not.  Who knows?  Just hoping any other side effects will be mild.  It feels good to have it over and know in 2 weeks life can resume.

Thanks for asking how it went and hope you are still feeling good!

---

Congrats! I'm glad for you that you got it done! It does sound mild so far. Hope it contiunes like that for you.