hopp

A Navy Medical officer has complied statistics on aviator heart failures since the jab. The numbers are as toning and DOD doesn't like it..

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...vy-medic-says/

https://x.com/Risemelbourne/status/1...914990526?s=20

sailingfun

Great source! LOL

e6bpilot

This reads like it was written by a bad Russian bot.

Bonus points for making their website look like the Military Times, same fonts and style.

Beech Dude

I'll be keeping an eye out for the commercials in 10 years for vets..."Did you receive the Pfizer/Moderna/J&J vaccine in 2020 as part of the Covid 19 PLANdemic? As a veteran, you may be entitled to compensation, call Smith&Smith Law now at 888-555-6969."

Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, Shipyard Mesothelioma, Anthrax, Camp Lejeune Water, COVID shot, on and on and on it goes...

SonicFlyer

I really don't know why anyone healthy would subject themselves to getting the COVID vax. Pure idiocy.

Sliceback

The 'whistleblower' doesn't tell us the details. The USN says it's includes Covid patients...well of course all those issues are higher after Covid attacks. That's the whole point of avoiding getting the disease, spreading the disease and why taking the vaccine is a good idea. Current studies show the difference between vaccination/unvaccinated deaths, hospitalizations, etc. 2.46x more likely to die if you're unvaccinated. Why doesn't the whistleblower mention this data?

October 2 - Nov 2, 2023 Washington State data - unvaccinated vs vaccinated - hospitalization - <35 2x more likely to be hospitalized, 35-64 - 4.5x(!), 65+ - 2.4x. Death? 35-64 - 1.3x more likely to die if unvaccinated, 65+ - 2.5x more likely to die.

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/fil...Vaccinated.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10492612/

MaxQ

The reason people get vaccinated for any virus is to reduce the chances of getting said virus. Or if one does get infected, so as to already have a leg up with their immune system.
I did not contract polio. An older sister did prior to vaccination being available did.
If I see someone with a pockmarked face I assume adolescent acne. Smallpox doesn't even enter my mind.
Did you grow up in a society free of polio and smallpox? How did that come to be so?

When COVID first appeared on the scene your chances of dying from it (if infected) ran about 5 to 7percent. After a relatively short while, if you caught it you ran about a 2% chance of dying. (I am ignoring contributing factors such as age, pre-conditions, etc). By the time vaccines had been available in the USA for a few months (it's roll-out was well managed) total deaths fell sharply (don't remember the numbers) and your chance of dying from it, if you contracted it, fell to below 1%.

I know of at least one scientist who posited that without the anti-vax campaign enough of the population would have gotten vaccinated to essentially make COVID 19 history. Instead it is still around and can still kill.
I lack the knowledge to say that he (she?) is correct, but based on our success with past vaccinations I find the assertion plausible.

Since medical treatment became politicized by Dunning & Kruger Inc. it is almost impossible for the un-trained to assert pure idiocy.

Puckpilot78

Come on man, that sounds even more ridiculous than anything posted above. It maybe would make sense, if as were told initially that getting the vax would prevent you from getting covid at all. But we all know that isn't, and never was the case. Not to mention that no country on Earth, no matter how strict their protocols (see China) managed to come anywhere close to eradicating covid. This isn't polio, or smallpox. This type of SARS virus evolves into different variants as we well know, so by the time you've engineered a vaccine for one variant there's already more out there. At least it appears so far that as surmised by people in the know, the variants tend to become less lethal as they evolve and our immune systems are able to catch up and provide a better defense.

Thedude86

This is the first study I've seen in awhile that shows a benefit so I had to actually read it. Not only yours, but almost every single study that show the vaccines as a benefit are all riddled with limitations (that they self report) and then you see funding from primarily Pfizer and/or other pharmaceutical companies listed in the conflicts of interest section and then you can see why so many limitations exist. Most independent unbiased (non conflicts of interest) studies show no benefit and in some cases a negative effect.

The first study you listed is from Washington state who for some reason can only give data during a recent 27 day time span despite having data for the previous 3 years. My guess is because thats the only time frame the numbers worked in their favor and they really had to create some limitations to even get those numbers. In the "Please Note:" section it says... bivalent boosters are not included in the data. Individuals who received a bivalent after August 31, 2022 are removed. In other words, unvaccinated keep getting counted, but practically anyone who got a shot in the last year and a half aren't included at all. The data also doesn't include people who only got the primary series without ever getting a booster. So youre excluding a HUGE group of vaccinated while counting ALL the unvaccinated. Plus, this is one state, for only 27 days. How many 12-34 year olds died in that one state in 27 days when hardly anyone is dying of covid now. They might have counted 2 people. I would guess 5 tops and im sure the cause of death being covid is quite the stretch. There are some European COUNTRIES that haven't counted ANY deaths in this age group for covid for all of 2023. Yet, we're supposed to believe Washington got a big enough sample size in 27 days?

The only data that goes back that far in the Washington study are the graphs. You see a huge disparity in early 2022, which looks like it would support vaccination, but early 2022 is when most hospitals would test anyone for covid who came in unvaccinated even if they came in for a broken leg or flu or car accident etc. and if they tested positive they would count as a covid hospitalization. If somebody in a car accident checked in that was vaccinated... they would not be tested. Some hospitals STILL use this method. This has been documented numerous times and even admitted by the former director of the CDC, Dr. Walensky.

Thedude86

Your second study is a Meta-anylasis. These are actually the only studies I've seen without limitations and/or pharmaceutical funding that show a benefit to the vax. But then you look at the studies they used for the meta-anylasis and almost every single one is funded by pfizer or the main author works for pfizer and then you see tons of limitations listed.

In your meta-anylasis that you posted you can scroll down to the bottom and see the studies they used to gather their data. I scrolled down until I found studies comparing death rates and these are excerpts from the only 3 that I happened to click on. So who knows what the other 33 studies they used show....

7th study referenced... "If an antigen test was positive and then a subsequent PCR test was negative for the same patient, the patient was considered positive". They did this despite a PCR test being more sensitive. In the same study, "Each hospital admission was counted as a single observation in the denominator. We did not link index hospital admissions and readmissions." So if grandma came in for some medicine and then again 3 days later, she got counted as 2 covid hospitalizations.

12th study. "Some persons might have received COVID-19 vaccines outside of KPNW (e.g., at a mass vaccination site) and might have been misclassified as unvaccinated if the record was not available." In other words, a vaccinated person could have died and it would have counted as an unvaccinated death. How convenient.

Scroll down to the notes and you can see why such a huge discrepancy was allowed... First author mentioned, "Allison L. Naleway reported institutional funding from Pfizer".

13th study. "Booster doses could not be distinguished from additional primary doses administered to immunocompromised persons, which could result in reduced IRRs." "Variable data linkage completeness might have resulted in MISCLASSIFICATIONS".

So same limitation 2 studies in a row. Scroll down further... "Leah Eisenstein reports ownership of 100 shares of Pfizer stock" Not that much really, but once again we see missclassification. The whole entire point of these studies is to differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated.

I stopped after these three studies and they all include more limitations than just what I listed and there are another 33 studies referenced in your meta anylasis.

A lot of independent studies have limitations also, but most of them do not. And the studies that do have limitations aren't as severe as what I listed above. A 6th grade biology class could create a better study than both the Washington state study and the Meta-anylasis that you provided. You'd think if the vaccine was so great they would be able to use some accurate data.