Is the tide turning against covid vaccines?

by slimboyfat 173 Replies latest social current

  • stan livedeath
    stan livedeath
    FLORIDA Governor & Surgeon General advise AGAINST MRNA jabs after analysis found there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination.

    one might ask how many 18-39 y o males died of cardiac-related issues in Florida in that 28 days.

  • LV101
    LV101

    Formerly known ethical doctors prefer the payouts and maintaining their license to practice. Their survival depends on it.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    I'm thinking that they make much more money if they save lives.

    Have you read about the Vioxx case?

    Because of the patent laws drug companies concentrate on making small changes to old drugs and sell them as new drugs. Sometimes this is as “harmless” as overstating the efficacy of drugs by commissioning many trials and only publishing the favourable ones. (Yes that’s legal and common practice) Other times it means hiding the side effects of drugs and dealing with the legal repercussions later, if and when the they become known.

    The system is explicitly constituted to prioritise profit over human life and well being. Why should we be surprised at the outcome?

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    The two papers by Dr Malhotra in the Journal of Insulin Resistance can be read here and here.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I just read the conclusions, thanks Earnest, they sound measured. There may be a case for the vaccines for the elderly and some vulnerable groups, but for most of the population it is beginning to look like they have done more harm than good, unfortunately. This is particularly disastrous, if true, considering the vaccines were required for some people to keep their jobs. If it turns out that they cause serious long term effects for people who were at little risk from the virus in the first place, will people ever trust authorities on health matters again?

    Above all, I think we should learn from this that people should be given full information and allowed to make their own choices.

  • TonusOH
    TonusOH
    slimboyfat: Have you read about the Vioxx case?

    I think Vioxx is covered by my previous statement: "I'm aware that companies do sometimes take shortcuts that cost lives, and that might even be part of the calculus in some cases." Merck may have come out ahead overall with Vioxx financially, though they did pay out $5 billion in settlements, which doesn't count any fines and lawyer costs. Their example doesn't seem like the sort that would incentivize other companies to take similar shortcuts.

    The system is explicitly constituted to prioritise profit over human life and well being.

    Kind of, yeah. But I don't agree that it's explicit. You do have to develop a market and find people to sell to and get them to keep coming back, and they can't spend money when they're dead.

    I don't see this as an either-or scenario. If I don't trust conspiracy theorists, I'm not obligated to trust politicians and corporations. Hence why I said I'm a pragmatist. The logical and practical explanations may not always be the right ones, because people are capable of being almost comically blind to the consequences of their plans. But they work more often than not, in my experience.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    It wasn’t a “short cut” it was a deliberate decision to sell harmful drugs to make a profit. Why do you call that a short cut?

  • TD
  • TonusOH
    TonusOH

    A shortcut, in this context, is a deliberate decision taken in the interests of making money. Which didn't work as Merck had hoped, a reminder that taking shortcuts can cost money instead.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    It wasn’t a matter of not waiting for the data, the data was already in. If somebody gives someone something they know will do more harm than good that is not a shortcut. And if tens of thousands of people die as a result I don’t call that a shortcut. I’d describe that as murder and it’s outrageous that no one went to jail, especially the person who wrote the email saying it was a “shame” about the adverse effect but they’d make money on it. I find it unnerving the lengths people will go to excuse the harmful effects of our economic system when it is killing people for the benefit of a few.

    Bear it mind this was just the time they got caught. How many times have they done this without getting caught?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit