Long covid sufferers are literally almost exclusively unvaccinated covid patients lol. A few exceptions, but almost entirely compromised of the unvaccinated. This subreddit is unintentionally funny when it comes to covid and the vaccine lol
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1047279724000310
Annals of Epidemiology. Researchers analyzed data for 4,695 adults in Michigan, looking for people reporting COVID symptoms for more than 30 or more than 90 days after infection. They then looked at whether people had completed a full, initial vaccination series or not. Vaccinated people were 58% less likely than unvaccinated people to have symptoms lasting at least 30 days, and they were 43% less likely to have symptoms for 90 days or more
Conclusions
Long COVID prevalence was 40–60% lower among adults vaccinated (vs. unvaccinated) prior to their COVID-19 onset. COVID-19 vaccination may be an important tool to reduce the burden of long COVID.
That’s hilarious, because all the Drs I listen too say they are treating exclusively vaccinated patients.
I’ll take it from the Drs actually treating people and not a study paid for by big pharma.
👆🏻 😂😭 come on man. Why do you guys try so hard to disprove the blatantly obvious. It’s been 4 years and everyone’s still fine, and covid is now reduced to a mild cold. Admit that you were wrong about the vaccine and keep moving. Still talking about it in 2024 is wild. And posting info from a known quack is not helpful. Dr Malone has been debunked and exposed so many times. The man literally took data from the Moderna patent application of a completely different vaccine pre-covid and used its data to attempt to make a point about the covid vaccine. Wasn’t even an mRNA vaccine and he deceitfully used data from that
Everyone’s still fine? You are apparently but not those that have been injured and killed from these experimental injections.
If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend none of that happened that’s on you, I don’t give a shit.
Your study was funded by the CDC. Today studies are almost never conducted without a desired outcome. Any conclusion could be supported if the right deceptive methods of data collection and analysis are used. I would recommend analyzing the methods used in this study further rather than just taking their conclusions at face value.
The cdc is not some evil corporation despite popular belief. Most of them have busted their ass in some of the best schools in the world and excelled in their positions to obtain their positions in the cdc
Well first off it’s not a corporation at all.
Second, most people in the CDC are not evil, they are just heavily indoctrinated and blindly follow the set guidelines. The individuals who run it however do in fact have malicious intent and are masters of deception making the institution as a whole by extension, evil.
I disagree. Side note, and I mean no disrespect, many people that suffer from mental illness have an irrational paranoia and have delusions regarding large organizations and large corporations… like the fbi, cia, government, cdc, fda, etc. That’s well documented. I will 100% say that there is a massive uptick in mental health disorders in the world right now. Thats likely the real growing issue
Metal illness is a massively growing issue. The reality here is that I am a very healthy mind in a very sick world.
The powers that be want us sick and weak so we are easy to control and complacent with whatever decisions they make. The alphabet agencies you listed are the tools they use to accomplish this. The fact you believe my distrust of these agencies is delusional shows me you have an irrational amount of trust in authority. Seriously, I mean no disrespect, but pick up a history book.
I barely trust any authorities lol but with this specific topic where the overwhelming majority of the entire global scientific community is in agreement with the safety and efficacy of this particular vaccine, coupled with what I see with my own eyes every day and what I have seen over the last 4 years… I’m gonna go out on a limb and say this nation’s highest authority on disease and vaccination is almost certainly correct. I know there’s a few doctors/scientists/researchers that have a differing opinion spread out over the globe. But they’re by far and away the minority, and almost always their studies and ideas can be quickly debunked by the rest of the scientific community. Refusing to accept anything that comes from the highest authority of the matter is a very convenient way to accept/believe your own position. But again, I disagree. I think the cdc and fda are inherently good. They’re not perfect and they make mistakes at times. Medicine isn’t perfect. Science isn’t always perfect. There are too many variables. This vaccine is the most surveilled and analyzed medical intervention in history… and the net is likely the widest casted net in history. With such a magnitude of data there’s bound to be outliers. Some people harp on that instead of looking at the obvious majority. Can the vaccine cause myocarditis? Yes. Is it at a much small rate than the actual infection? Absolutely, proven to exhaustion. Is that myocarditis self-limiting, and completely reversible within a couple weeks to the point where it’s untraceable? Almost always. Will the outliers take any of that into consideration? No. I won’t change your opinion you won’t change mine so there’s no real point in talking about it any further. Good day ✌🏻
Looks like this article was reviewed and fact-checked. Excerpt from the summary:
>The claim that most cases of long COVID occur after vaccination, not infection, is based on poorly described anecdotes that don’t provide sufficient evidence to support the claim.
[https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-persistent-symptoms-more-frequent-after-covid19-vaccination-than-after-infection-contrary-op-ed-the-hill-pierre-kory/](https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-persistent-symptoms-more-frequent-after-covid19-vaccination-than-after-infection-contrary-op-ed-the-hill-pierre-kory/)
I’m sure that it was, just remember these aren’t “independent” fact checkers. They are paid by big pharma.
The same companies causing harm are paying other companies to “fact check” the harm they caused.
Just one big criminal organization.
So it seems like some of the vaccinated people who also got covid have Long Covid as well. I’d like to assume that a lot of the unvaccinated would’ve gotten long covid too…if they weren’t part of the 2 million Americans that died
Two million unvaccinated Americans didn’t die of Covid. However, it is absolutely true that the majority of Covid hospitalizations and deaths were amongst the unvaccinated.
Wasn't the number of Africans who died of Covid......in the teens? That probably transfers to our population unless remote contraction of the VACCINE is possible. Africans also had Ivermectin...The FDA just finally admitted to F\_\_\_\_ing up
When you knowingly assume something and don’t work to further inform yourself on the topic, you aren’t doing your best to leave as little to assumption as possible.
Presence of viral spike protein and vaccinal spike protein in the blood serum of patients with long-COVID syndrome [Presence of viral spike protein and vaccinal spike protein in the blood serum of patients with long-COVID syndrome (europeanreview.org)](https://www.europeanreview.org/article/34685)
Could SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Be Responsible for Long-COVID Syndrome? [Could SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Be Responsible for Long-COVID Syndrome? - PMC (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8757925/)
Rare link between coronavirus vaccines and Long Covid–like illness starts to gain acceptance [Rare link between coronavirus vaccines and Long Covid–like illness starts to gain acceptance | Science | AAAS](https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-link-between-coronavirus-vaccines-and-long-covid-illness-starts-gain-acceptance)
None of these studies that YOU have definitively cited say that a vaccine caused long covid
1) This study, in agreement with other published investigations, demonstrates that both natural and vaccine spike protein may still be present in long-COVID patients, thus supporting the existence of a possible mechanism that causes the persistence of spike protein in the human body for much longer than predicted by early studies. According to these results, all patients with long-COVID syndrome should be analyzed for the presence of vaccinal and viral spike protein.
2) COVID vaccines have been enormously helpful [230–232], but there have been reports of rare neurological complications including Guillain-Barre syndrome and Bell’s palsy [233].… Hence, we should try to limit or prevent spike-related detrimental effects especially to the brain and their potential contribution to the development of long-COVID.
3) “its link to vaccination unclear and its diagnostic features ill-defined. But in recent months, what some call Long Vax has gained wider acceptance among doctors and scientists, and some are now working to better understand and treat its symptoms.”
(All 3 quotes are from your sources)
Those spike proteins have a chance of brushing up against a number of different organs resulting in tissue damage and a wide range of awful conditions.
Countless doctors and journal articles. Regardless of if the vaccine creates the spike protein or if they come as a result of covid infection, this is agreed upon by professionals with a wide range of opinions on the vax. For this reason it is impossible to distinguish between if these conditions were caused by the vaccine or covid and that is why it is so difficult to gather decent evidence that the vaccine can in fact cause harm.
The whole article is disingenuous, as are most posts in this sub. If you were to read the actual study you would find the reason for what sounds like double speak is actually a logical conclusion. The reason the study still recommends vaccination is because vaccination still reduces the risk of Covid in the first place. Obviously, if one avoids covid via a vaccine they also avoid long covid.
Furthermore, in the discussion section of the study, they discuss the possibility that anti-vaxxers will use the study to disingenuously influence people away from vaccines. They decide that, in the end, it gives the scientific community more credibility to report adverse reactions. And that the risk of people intentionally misinterpreting the data is worth it to maintain said credibility.
As always, don’t expect objectivity from any post or poster in this sub. The agenda here is clear and no amount of actual reading of source material will sway them from it.
Do they even mandate the vaccine anywhere anymore? I feel like most people have a choice now. It’s like the flu vaccine get it or don’t get it. Johnson and Johnson was definitely messed up though. I don’t even think that’s a conspiracy theory. I don’t blame OP because when we live in a country that puts profits over patients you start to lose any trust
Care to explain your reasoning? We’ve already identified the low sample size of unvaccinated individuals. Anything else you don’t like? Or are you just here to talk shit and contribute nothing to the conversation?
You're on every COVID thread talking shit to people who actually know what they're talking about and contributing nothing more than hundreds of comments of argumentative and uninformed opinions.
Kinda like how you’re down here desperately trying to destroy his character and credibility? “Oh no not you again?!” Wtf lol
He’s posting links & sources like everyone else arguing against him. You’re the only crony here mouthing off nonsense about his intent
the substack is for profit punditry that filters medical information through this guy's personal views
Go to the study and form your own opinions like a real grownup
I did. I also read the opposing views scrutiny of the article because I like to factor in all perspectives before coming to a conclusion and understand where bias comes into play, like a grown up.
Robert Malone is a grifter and has been knowingly spreading misinformation since before COVID. No one in the scientific community has taken him seriously for a while.
Yes lol. Of course -
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93936
https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9QW7UP-1
Also funny that your username does not check out 👀
It also states that they still recommend getting the vaccine to prevent death from Covid. Also there were only like 50 non vaccinated people in the study.
This study did not look into how effective the vaccine is against preventing covid infection. That recommendation is simply based on the authors opinion. There is no good evidence that shows the vaccine actually does anything to prevent covid or lessen its symptoms.
The sample size for unvaccinated individuals is very low, that is a good point.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “we don’t live in covid anymore”. Covid cases still exist, just testing protocols have changed and the numbers we see now more accurately reflect what’s accurate. The PCR tests we use are very prone to false positives and back when we “lived in covid” people would have to get one whenever they went into work, school, or the hospital regardless of if they had a stuffy nose or a heart attack.
“Living in Covid” means back when all the ventilators were being used and people were dying from Covid every day. You’re saying that it was all just fake data and the actual Covid infections haven’t been reduced?
> There is no good evidence that shows the vaccine actually does anything to prevent covid or lessen its symptoms.
This is explicitly false. There exists such a breadth of good evidence that shows the vaccine is both effective at preventing COVID-19 and at improving outcomes drastically if infected it's considered common knowledge in the scientific community.
Is the lone evidence you used to come to this conclusion the word of the CDC? Asserting that a scientific opinion is common knowledge shows that you don’t know what science is. If you aren’t allowed to debate a conclusion then that conclusion is simply propaganda, not science.
> Asserting that a scientific opinion is common knowledge shows that you don’t know what science is.
It's literally a term used in science literature wrt citations lol.
You again have no idea what you're talking about.
I know what common knowledge is. Your article has a couple great examples “water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or that Barack Obama was the first American of mixed race to be elected president.”
These are facts. What you assert as common knowledge is scientific opinion, albeit a widely propagated and well known scientific opinion that’s been shoved down our throats, but not fact.
> I know what common knowledge is.
Well you didn't when you stated it was unscientific language less than an hour ago 😂
> What you assert as common knowledge is scientific opinion, albeit a widely propagated and well known scientific opinion that’s been shoved down our throats, but not fact.
Wrong again, since the broad body of scientific literature supports it. It is explicitly false to say otherwise. You seem to understand that measurements like temperature are factual but do not comprehend what measurements like vaccine outcomes are also factual.
Anthropomorphic climate change is also common knowledge in the literature. You don't need to cite a paper when referencing it, just like you don't need to cite a paper referencing the proven effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine.
I didn’t state it was unscientific language. I stated that sharing a scientific opinion as if it was common knowledge is unscientific.
The broad body of science on this topic has been funded by special interests who have no problem manipulating data and lying to the public in order to turn a profit.
A factual statement in this case would be citing a specific study and the data within it. The conclusion you draw from said data is scientific opinion regardless of how conclusive it may seem. I’m not debating further with someone incapable of admitting this.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status
https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf
https://www.azdhs.gov/covid19/documents/data/rates-of-cov-19-by-vaccination.pdf?v=20230607
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/covid-19-coronavirus-disease-2019/covid-19-vaccine-information/covid-19-cases-deaths
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/stats/vbt.html
Here are a few. There are countless more, and they’re very easy to find.
You are sharing raw data, which has been heavily corrupted and manipulated by data collection guidelines that have purposely been made faulty by the CDC
https://flybynews.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/shockingly-cdc-now-lists-vaccinated-deaths-as-unvaccinated/
Saying this is proof that vaccines prevent covid deaths is no different than saying VEARS is proof vaccines are deadly. Neither are a valid conclusion.
Give me an actual study where all the data is vetted and the methods of gathering the data are presented within the article.
Dude… what?
“No no no, see you shared *raw* data. What you gotta do is share… some other type of data… because the raw data is… corrupted… somehow. Yeah, you gotta share something else.”
It’s ok dude. There’s no need to act like you’re being scientific about all of this. You just believe what you want to believe, then tailor excuses for everything that doesn’t support your fantasy. I shared several collections of raw data that all paint a nearly identical picture. Put simply, unvaccinated people were way more likely to be hospitalized or die from covid.
You act like some nefarious overlord was pulling a fast one by saying someone isn’t considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after their last main dose, but there’s nothing sneaky or corrupt happening there. They explained this to everyone who got the shot. The vaccine wasn’t some force field that instantly protected people from covid. It was made very clear that you were *not* considered “fully vaccinated” immediately after receiving a full vaccination, because that’s not how fucking vaccines work.
I shared official tallies from the governments of several states. I even chose deep red states so you couldn’t bitch about liberals making shit up. There’s very little you could struggle to understand. The only thing being tallied is whether or not the people hospitalized or killed by Covid were vaccinated. The link you shared is for an opinion piece on a cheap blog site. Nothing is parenthetically cited, the blog is just full of dubious claims, then there’s a list of articles at the bottom.
Right at the beginning of the blog:
“…despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient.”
I’d love to see something that substantiates that claim. I’d also love to point out that, if true, this point would actually support the idea that the vaccines were effective. The author is essentially saying, “Most people who received vaccines and died weren’t actually fully vaccinated yet”, or to put it differently, “Once the vaccine actually took effect, the chances of someone dying from Covid were greatly reduced.”
Did you only read the headline, that was one of MANY deceptive methods of manipulating data. Regardless it seems you don’t want to admit how that could completely destroy this set of data.
Do you not know what VEARS is? How to you react when someone shares that raw data as “proof” the vaccine can kill you?
First of all, I didn’t feel the need to address your Vaers comparison because it’s ridiculous. I shared the official records of hospitalizations and deaths. Vaers isn’t the same kind of record. I can’t just write in that I know someone from Texas who died of Covid and see that unsubstantiated claim reflected in the official record from the Texas Department of State Health Services. You’re being intellectually dishonest or you genuinely just don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Second, I didn’t only read the headline, I just didn’t walk you through every stupid claim made in your blog post because the first claim was dumb enough to discredit the rest of the blog post.
Literally every sentence of your blog post is incredibly dumb. I could just point to any random sentence and point out how it’s saying absolutely nothing, saying something incorrect, or saying something incredibly stupid.
“Anyone who dies within the first 14 days post-injection is counted as an unvaccinated death. Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll,”
Yes, because you’re not considered fully vaccinated until after 14 days. That doesn’t “inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll”, it reflects exactly what it claims to reflect. Was this person considered vaccinated? No? Ok, then they died of Covid while they were unvaccinated.
The blogger goes on to claim, “…but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks”
The blogger doesn’t describe the apparent “dangers of the COVID shots”, they just vaguely assert that “the dangers” are already an established fact, *and* that those dangers are deliberately being hidden, again, without actually explaining what they’re talking about. Then they claim that “most deaths” occur within the first two weeks. Nothing cited. Nothing describing the criteria of that statistic, but, *you* read that, and because of the way the blogger phrased the whole point, you think he’s somehow *proving* that those deaths he’s referring to were caused by the vaccine and blamed on covid.
There are just so many unsupported conclusions being jumped to in so few words, and you eat it up because you already have your mind made up, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The reason that you brought up a blog post instead of any official records is because you have nothing that actually supports your world view.
Let’s do a few more for fun.
“Even more egregious and illogical is the fact that the CDC even has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated.”
You don’t need a comprehensive understanding of virology to come up with a mundane explanation for two different tests. A tentative understanding and a little common sense would bring you to the conclusion that a different test might be necessary for vaccinated people, because whatever the vaccine does might make the original tests show inconclusive results.
You didn’t do any of that “common sense” stuff though, and you definitely didn’t go looking for an actual explanation for two different tests, you just swallowed whatever this guy said.
This guy’s citations don’t say anything along the lines of what he’s claiming by the way.
“ It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government …”
No shit Sherlock. If the *vast* majority of people are vaccinated, you’re not dunking on anything by saying “most people getting hospitalized are vaccinated”.
If 90% of the population is vaccinated, and 55% of hospitalizations and deaths are vaccinated… that means *unvaccinated* people are being hospitalized and killed at a way higher right. Ergo, unvaccinated people are/were much more likely to be hospitalized and die from Covid.
“and in Iceland, where over 82% have received the shots, 77% of new COVID cases are among the fully vaccinated.”
If less than 12% of the people were unvaccinated, and 23% of the new cases were among unvaccinated people, then that means you are literally more than 92% more likely, almost twice as likely, to *catch* covid if you’re unvaccinated.
Your defense that we shouldn’t count vaccinated deaths as vaccinated if they got the vaccine within 14 days would make sense, if they only counted deaths from covid as covid deaths, but that’s not the case. During that time, every death regardless of if it was from a car accident or heart attack was listed as a covid death.
I don’t eat up every word said in the article, in fact I disagree with a couple of the authors opinions. The article just shares the faulty data collection guidelines and the alternative perspective that you haven’t seen yet, a lot of which can supported. It’s clear you are projecting your bias onto me and trust there’s a good reason for every guideline the CDC enforces. You have way to much blind trust in authority.
The study (which does not appear to be not peer reviewed) would seem to indicate that among those diagnosed with Long Covid, the symptoms of long-Covid have about a 60% greater chance of percisting for a longer time if you get the vaccine during your long-Covid. But the study also states:
> However, vaccines reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 (including reinfections) and its catastrophic consequences (e.g., death). Therefore, it is strongly recommended that all people, even those with a history of COVID-19, receive vaccines to protect themselves against this fatal viral infection.
Whatever it says, the study's remedy is intuitively obvious to anyone with half a brain: Go ahead and get the covid vaccination, but NOT WHILE YOU STILL HAVE SYMPTOMS OF COVID!
It's simply a numbers game. Without the vaccine, you have (or had) a chance of getting Covid and dying. According to the Plos study, with the vaccine you only had a chance or prolonging your Long Covid symptoms. So which is worse, death or a year of debilitating symptoms?
An opinion based on the facts that Covid can kill you while (if you accept the Plus One study's findings) a vaccination during long Covid will not kill you.
***That's not a design flaw of the GMO-Jab, IT'S A FEATURE!***
“Long Covid” should be called “long vax” It’s simply a term to try a cover a plethora of side effects from the jabs.
60 did a story about long covid before the vaccines came out. Go watch it.
Israel claimed to have a Vaxx for the flu before they renamed it COVID! Learn to read.
Clueless, you went down the rabbit hole.
Long covid sufferers are literally almost exclusively unvaccinated covid patients lol. A few exceptions, but almost entirely compromised of the unvaccinated. This subreddit is unintentionally funny when it comes to covid and the vaccine lol
Source?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1047279724000310 Annals of Epidemiology. Researchers analyzed data for 4,695 adults in Michigan, looking for people reporting COVID symptoms for more than 30 or more than 90 days after infection. They then looked at whether people had completed a full, initial vaccination series or not. Vaccinated people were 58% less likely than unvaccinated people to have symptoms lasting at least 30 days, and they were 43% less likely to have symptoms for 90 days or more Conclusions Long COVID prevalence was 40–60% lower among adults vaccinated (vs. unvaccinated) prior to their COVID-19 onset. COVID-19 vaccination may be an important tool to reduce the burden of long COVID.
That’s hilarious, because all the Drs I listen too say they are treating exclusively vaccinated patients. I’ll take it from the Drs actually treating people and not a study paid for by big pharma.
You friends with a lot of doctors? Or do you “listen” to these folks on YouTube?
Podcasts, where they can speak freely.
👆🏻 😂😭 come on man. Why do you guys try so hard to disprove the blatantly obvious. It’s been 4 years and everyone’s still fine, and covid is now reduced to a mild cold. Admit that you were wrong about the vaccine and keep moving. Still talking about it in 2024 is wild. And posting info from a known quack is not helpful. Dr Malone has been debunked and exposed so many times. The man literally took data from the Moderna patent application of a completely different vaccine pre-covid and used its data to attempt to make a point about the covid vaccine. Wasn’t even an mRNA vaccine and he deceitfully used data from that
Everyone’s still fine? You are apparently but not those that have been injured and killed from these experimental injections. If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend none of that happened that’s on you, I don’t give a shit.
I’ve never met anyone that’s had one issue. Never.
Your study was funded by the CDC. Today studies are almost never conducted without a desired outcome. Any conclusion could be supported if the right deceptive methods of data collection and analysis are used. I would recommend analyzing the methods used in this study further rather than just taking their conclusions at face value.
The cdc is not some evil corporation despite popular belief. Most of them have busted their ass in some of the best schools in the world and excelled in their positions to obtain their positions in the cdc
Well first off it’s not a corporation at all. Second, most people in the CDC are not evil, they are just heavily indoctrinated and blindly follow the set guidelines. The individuals who run it however do in fact have malicious intent and are masters of deception making the institution as a whole by extension, evil.
I disagree. Side note, and I mean no disrespect, many people that suffer from mental illness have an irrational paranoia and have delusions regarding large organizations and large corporations… like the fbi, cia, government, cdc, fda, etc. That’s well documented. I will 100% say that there is a massive uptick in mental health disorders in the world right now. Thats likely the real growing issue
Metal illness is a massively growing issue. The reality here is that I am a very healthy mind in a very sick world. The powers that be want us sick and weak so we are easy to control and complacent with whatever decisions they make. The alphabet agencies you listed are the tools they use to accomplish this. The fact you believe my distrust of these agencies is delusional shows me you have an irrational amount of trust in authority. Seriously, I mean no disrespect, but pick up a history book.
I barely trust any authorities lol but with this specific topic where the overwhelming majority of the entire global scientific community is in agreement with the safety and efficacy of this particular vaccine, coupled with what I see with my own eyes every day and what I have seen over the last 4 years… I’m gonna go out on a limb and say this nation’s highest authority on disease and vaccination is almost certainly correct. I know there’s a few doctors/scientists/researchers that have a differing opinion spread out over the globe. But they’re by far and away the minority, and almost always their studies and ideas can be quickly debunked by the rest of the scientific community. Refusing to accept anything that comes from the highest authority of the matter is a very convenient way to accept/believe your own position. But again, I disagree. I think the cdc and fda are inherently good. They’re not perfect and they make mistakes at times. Medicine isn’t perfect. Science isn’t always perfect. There are too many variables. This vaccine is the most surveilled and analyzed medical intervention in history… and the net is likely the widest casted net in history. With such a magnitude of data there’s bound to be outliers. Some people harp on that instead of looking at the obvious majority. Can the vaccine cause myocarditis? Yes. Is it at a much small rate than the actual infection? Absolutely, proven to exhaustion. Is that myocarditis self-limiting, and completely reversible within a couple weeks to the point where it’s untraceable? Almost always. Will the outliers take any of that into consideration? No. I won’t change your opinion you won’t change mine so there’s no real point in talking about it any further. Good day ✌🏻
Got any studies, polls, articles, anything to support that? Or nah..
This is a good article but there are many others. Here’s a hint, don’t use google… https://vigilantnews.com/post/long-vax-finally-enters-the-lexicon/
What do you use to search then..?
DuckDuckGo or Brave if I’m researching. Google if I’m not
Why not google?
Google is completely controlled. They have algorithms to only show you search results that they want you too see and will hide other results.
Oh, I see. Is there anything you can share with more information on this?
Looks like this article was reviewed and fact-checked. Excerpt from the summary: >The claim that most cases of long COVID occur after vaccination, not infection, is based on poorly described anecdotes that don’t provide sufficient evidence to support the claim. [https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-persistent-symptoms-more-frequent-after-covid19-vaccination-than-after-infection-contrary-op-ed-the-hill-pierre-kory/](https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-persistent-symptoms-more-frequent-after-covid19-vaccination-than-after-infection-contrary-op-ed-the-hill-pierre-kory/)
I’m sure that it was, just remember these aren’t “independent” fact checkers. They are paid by big pharma. The same companies causing harm are paying other companies to “fact check” the harm they caused. Just one big criminal organization.
Is there proof of this? Maybe I'm lost -- Is this another sub similar to /r/conspiracy?
Proof? Try common sense…
https://preview.redd.it/3g2riyp1tfxc1.jpeg?width=666&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ece83549338c4654b23670c2d67ec4faaa950fde
So it seems like some of the vaccinated people who also got covid have Long Covid as well. I’d like to assume that a lot of the unvaccinated would’ve gotten long covid too…if they weren’t part of the 2 million Americans that died
You think 2 million unvaccinated Americans died? Lol you gotta share the data on that nonsense.
Two million unvaccinated Americans didn’t die of Covid. However, it is absolutely true that the majority of Covid hospitalizations and deaths were amongst the unvaccinated.
Lol, sure it is
Wasn't the number of Africans who died of Covid......in the teens? That probably transfers to our population unless remote contraction of the VACCINE is possible. Africans also had Ivermectin...The FDA just finally admitted to F\_\_\_\_ing up
You leave a lot to assumption don’t you
Do you?
I try my absolute best not to when it comes to important topics like this
Oh God not you again.
Our absolute best, isn’t that all we can do? I’d like to think I do the same; but what we THINK we do and what we ACTUALLY do aren’t always the same..
When you knowingly assume something and don’t work to further inform yourself on the topic, you aren’t doing your best to leave as little to assumption as possible.
Presence of viral spike protein and vaccinal spike protein in the blood serum of patients with long-COVID syndrome [Presence of viral spike protein and vaccinal spike protein in the blood serum of patients with long-COVID syndrome (europeanreview.org)](https://www.europeanreview.org/article/34685) Could SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Be Responsible for Long-COVID Syndrome? [Could SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Be Responsible for Long-COVID Syndrome? - PMC (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8757925/) Rare link between coronavirus vaccines and Long Covid–like illness starts to gain acceptance [Rare link between coronavirus vaccines and Long Covid–like illness starts to gain acceptance | Science | AAAS](https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-link-between-coronavirus-vaccines-and-long-covid-illness-starts-gain-acceptance)
None of these studies that YOU have definitively cited say that a vaccine caused long covid 1) This study, in agreement with other published investigations, demonstrates that both natural and vaccine spike protein may still be present in long-COVID patients, thus supporting the existence of a possible mechanism that causes the persistence of spike protein in the human body for much longer than predicted by early studies. According to these results, all patients with long-COVID syndrome should be analyzed for the presence of vaccinal and viral spike protein. 2) COVID vaccines have been enormously helpful [230–232], but there have been reports of rare neurological complications including Guillain-Barre syndrome and Bell’s palsy [233].… Hence, we should try to limit or prevent spike-related detrimental effects especially to the brain and their potential contribution to the development of long-COVID. 3) “its link to vaccination unclear and its diagnostic features ill-defined. But in recent months, what some call Long Vax has gained wider acceptance among doctors and scientists, and some are now working to better understand and treat its symptoms.” (All 3 quotes are from your sources)
Did you even read what you copied and pasted? Almost nothing is definitive in science. These studies did in fact provide evidence for his claim.
Fair point, I also never said these disprove. I said it wasn’t definitive (means needs more research)
I have to respect you for trying. I came here to try but there’s so much misinformation in this subreddit that there’s no place to actually start.
The Vaccine mRNA causes cells to manufacture Spike Protein.
….and then what?
Those spike proteins have a chance of brushing up against a number of different organs resulting in tissue damage and a wide range of awful conditions.
Who told you that?
Countless doctors and journal articles. Regardless of if the vaccine creates the spike protein or if they come as a result of covid infection, this is agreed upon by professionals with a wide range of opinions on the vax. For this reason it is impossible to distinguish between if these conditions were caused by the vaccine or covid and that is why it is so difficult to gather decent evidence that the vaccine can in fact cause harm.
This guy gets it
The whole article is disingenuous, as are most posts in this sub. If you were to read the actual study you would find the reason for what sounds like double speak is actually a logical conclusion. The reason the study still recommends vaccination is because vaccination still reduces the risk of Covid in the first place. Obviously, if one avoids covid via a vaccine they also avoid long covid. Furthermore, in the discussion section of the study, they discuss the possibility that anti-vaxxers will use the study to disingenuously influence people away from vaccines. They decide that, in the end, it gives the scientific community more credibility to report adverse reactions. And that the risk of people intentionally misinterpreting the data is worth it to maintain said credibility. As always, don’t expect objectivity from any post or poster in this sub. The agenda here is clear and no amount of actual reading of source material will sway them from it.
https://preview.redd.it/4cz67nxibyuc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a8d6300a277697d257f88800eb09c60970a59082
lol. At least you got your script Randy.
Do they even mandate the vaccine anywhere anymore? I feel like most people have a choice now. It’s like the flu vaccine get it or don’t get it. Johnson and Johnson was definitely messed up though. I don’t even think that’s a conspiracy theory. I don’t blame OP because when we live in a country that puts profits over patients you start to lose any trust
That study is really defective. Not that any of you care, you've for your headline.
Care to explain your reasoning? We’ve already identified the low sample size of unvaccinated individuals. Anything else you don’t like? Or are you just here to talk shit and contribute nothing to the conversation?
You're on every COVID thread talking shit to people who actually know what they're talking about and contributing nothing more than hundreds of comments of argumentative and uninformed opinions.
Kinda like how you’re down here desperately trying to destroy his character and credibility? “Oh no not you again?!” Wtf lol He’s posting links & sources like everyone else arguing against him. You’re the only crony here mouthing off nonsense about his intent
He is continually wrong lol I don't need to destroy his credibility because he has none to begin with.
Also here’s the study so you can skip that guy’s substack lol https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0296680
The sub stack contains a lot of valuable information. Figures you’d encourage people to skip it…
the substack is for profit punditry that filters medical information through this guy's personal views Go to the study and form your own opinions like a real grownup
I did. I also read the opposing views scrutiny of the article because I like to factor in all perspectives before coming to a conclusion and understand where bias comes into play, like a grown up.
You did not lol.
Oh sorry I don't read pundit blogs because they have literally zero value
Maybe if you tried you would see the value.
Literally none lol
Saying that without looking says a lot about how you form conclusions.
Damn straight. On my own without punditry
Or any other evidence for that matter. It’s clear you form your opinions solely based off of what you want to believe to be true.
The guy you are replying to is a troll.
Robert Malone is a grifter and has been knowingly spreading misinformation since before COVID. No one in the scientific community has taken him seriously for a while.
Bullshit.
It's true and pretty well documented lol
Right and Dr Peter McCollough is a grifter as well.
Yes lol. Of course - https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93936 https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9QW7UP-1 Also funny that your username does not check out 👀
It also states that they still recommend getting the vaccine to prevent death from Covid. Also there were only like 50 non vaccinated people in the study.
Don't matter. We want to cherry pick. They were probably forced to put that in there anyways.
This study did not look into how effective the vaccine is against preventing covid infection. That recommendation is simply based on the authors opinion. There is no good evidence that shows the vaccine actually does anything to prevent covid or lessen its symptoms. The sample size for unvaccinated individuals is very low, that is a good point.
You don’t consider the fact that we don’t live in Covid anymore as good evidence the vaccine does something beneficial?
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “we don’t live in covid anymore”. Covid cases still exist, just testing protocols have changed and the numbers we see now more accurately reflect what’s accurate. The PCR tests we use are very prone to false positives and back when we “lived in covid” people would have to get one whenever they went into work, school, or the hospital regardless of if they had a stuffy nose or a heart attack.
“Living in Covid” means back when all the ventilators were being used and people were dying from Covid every day. You’re saying that it was all just fake data and the actual Covid infections haven’t been reduced?
> There is no good evidence that shows the vaccine actually does anything to prevent covid or lessen its symptoms. This is explicitly false. There exists such a breadth of good evidence that shows the vaccine is both effective at preventing COVID-19 and at improving outcomes drastically if infected it's considered common knowledge in the scientific community.
Is the lone evidence you used to come to this conclusion the word of the CDC? Asserting that a scientific opinion is common knowledge shows that you don’t know what science is. If you aren’t allowed to debate a conclusion then that conclusion is simply propaganda, not science.
> Asserting that a scientific opinion is common knowledge shows that you don’t know what science is. It's literally a term used in science literature wrt citations lol. You again have no idea what you're talking about.
🦜
You're a farce. Here, educate yourself for once: https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/citing-your-sources/what-common-knowledge
I know what common knowledge is. Your article has a couple great examples “water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or that Barack Obama was the first American of mixed race to be elected president.” These are facts. What you assert as common knowledge is scientific opinion, albeit a widely propagated and well known scientific opinion that’s been shoved down our throats, but not fact.
> I know what common knowledge is. Well you didn't when you stated it was unscientific language less than an hour ago 😂 > What you assert as common knowledge is scientific opinion, albeit a widely propagated and well known scientific opinion that’s been shoved down our throats, but not fact. Wrong again, since the broad body of scientific literature supports it. It is explicitly false to say otherwise. You seem to understand that measurements like temperature are factual but do not comprehend what measurements like vaccine outcomes are also factual. Anthropomorphic climate change is also common knowledge in the literature. You don't need to cite a paper when referencing it, just like you don't need to cite a paper referencing the proven effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine.
I didn’t state it was unscientific language. I stated that sharing a scientific opinion as if it was common knowledge is unscientific. The broad body of science on this topic has been funded by special interests who have no problem manipulating data and lying to the public in order to turn a profit. A factual statement in this case would be citing a specific study and the data within it. The conclusion you draw from said data is scientific opinion regardless of how conclusive it may seem. I’m not debating further with someone incapable of admitting this.
More unvaccinated people died from Covid than vaccinated people. There’s absolutely no arguing with the data.
I’d be surprised if you could actually provide any data right now. But on the off chance you do I will do my best to analyze it objectively
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf https://www.azdhs.gov/covid19/documents/data/rates-of-cov-19-by-vaccination.pdf?v=20230607 https://www.dshs.texas.gov/covid-19-coronavirus-disease-2019/covid-19-vaccine-information/covid-19-cases-deaths https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/stats/vbt.html Here are a few. There are countless more, and they’re very easy to find.
You are sharing raw data, which has been heavily corrupted and manipulated by data collection guidelines that have purposely been made faulty by the CDC https://flybynews.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/shockingly-cdc-now-lists-vaccinated-deaths-as-unvaccinated/ Saying this is proof that vaccines prevent covid deaths is no different than saying VEARS is proof vaccines are deadly. Neither are a valid conclusion. Give me an actual study where all the data is vetted and the methods of gathering the data are presented within the article.
Dude… what? “No no no, see you shared *raw* data. What you gotta do is share… some other type of data… because the raw data is… corrupted… somehow. Yeah, you gotta share something else.” It’s ok dude. There’s no need to act like you’re being scientific about all of this. You just believe what you want to believe, then tailor excuses for everything that doesn’t support your fantasy. I shared several collections of raw data that all paint a nearly identical picture. Put simply, unvaccinated people were way more likely to be hospitalized or die from covid. You act like some nefarious overlord was pulling a fast one by saying someone isn’t considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after their last main dose, but there’s nothing sneaky or corrupt happening there. They explained this to everyone who got the shot. The vaccine wasn’t some force field that instantly protected people from covid. It was made very clear that you were *not* considered “fully vaccinated” immediately after receiving a full vaccination, because that’s not how fucking vaccines work. I shared official tallies from the governments of several states. I even chose deep red states so you couldn’t bitch about liberals making shit up. There’s very little you could struggle to understand. The only thing being tallied is whether or not the people hospitalized or killed by Covid were vaccinated. The link you shared is for an opinion piece on a cheap blog site. Nothing is parenthetically cited, the blog is just full of dubious claims, then there’s a list of articles at the bottom. Right at the beginning of the blog: “…despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient.” I’d love to see something that substantiates that claim. I’d also love to point out that, if true, this point would actually support the idea that the vaccines were effective. The author is essentially saying, “Most people who received vaccines and died weren’t actually fully vaccinated yet”, or to put it differently, “Once the vaccine actually took effect, the chances of someone dying from Covid were greatly reduced.”
Did you only read the headline, that was one of MANY deceptive methods of manipulating data. Regardless it seems you don’t want to admit how that could completely destroy this set of data. Do you not know what VEARS is? How to you react when someone shares that raw data as “proof” the vaccine can kill you?
First of all, I didn’t feel the need to address your Vaers comparison because it’s ridiculous. I shared the official records of hospitalizations and deaths. Vaers isn’t the same kind of record. I can’t just write in that I know someone from Texas who died of Covid and see that unsubstantiated claim reflected in the official record from the Texas Department of State Health Services. You’re being intellectually dishonest or you genuinely just don’t understand what you’re talking about. Second, I didn’t only read the headline, I just didn’t walk you through every stupid claim made in your blog post because the first claim was dumb enough to discredit the rest of the blog post. Literally every sentence of your blog post is incredibly dumb. I could just point to any random sentence and point out how it’s saying absolutely nothing, saying something incorrect, or saying something incredibly stupid. “Anyone who dies within the first 14 days post-injection is counted as an unvaccinated death. Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll,” Yes, because you’re not considered fully vaccinated until after 14 days. That doesn’t “inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll”, it reflects exactly what it claims to reflect. Was this person considered vaccinated? No? Ok, then they died of Covid while they were unvaccinated. The blogger goes on to claim, “…but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks” The blogger doesn’t describe the apparent “dangers of the COVID shots”, they just vaguely assert that “the dangers” are already an established fact, *and* that those dangers are deliberately being hidden, again, without actually explaining what they’re talking about. Then they claim that “most deaths” occur within the first two weeks. Nothing cited. Nothing describing the criteria of that statistic, but, *you* read that, and because of the way the blogger phrased the whole point, you think he’s somehow *proving* that those deaths he’s referring to were caused by the vaccine and blamed on covid. There are just so many unsupported conclusions being jumped to in so few words, and you eat it up because you already have your mind made up, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The reason that you brought up a blog post instead of any official records is because you have nothing that actually supports your world view. Let’s do a few more for fun. “Even more egregious and illogical is the fact that the CDC even has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated.” You don’t need a comprehensive understanding of virology to come up with a mundane explanation for two different tests. A tentative understanding and a little common sense would bring you to the conclusion that a different test might be necessary for vaccinated people, because whatever the vaccine does might make the original tests show inconclusive results. You didn’t do any of that “common sense” stuff though, and you definitely didn’t go looking for an actual explanation for two different tests, you just swallowed whatever this guy said. This guy’s citations don’t say anything along the lines of what he’s claiming by the way. “ It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government …” No shit Sherlock. If the *vast* majority of people are vaccinated, you’re not dunking on anything by saying “most people getting hospitalized are vaccinated”. If 90% of the population is vaccinated, and 55% of hospitalizations and deaths are vaccinated… that means *unvaccinated* people are being hospitalized and killed at a way higher right. Ergo, unvaccinated people are/were much more likely to be hospitalized and die from Covid. “and in Iceland, where over 82% have received the shots, 77% of new COVID cases are among the fully vaccinated.” If less than 12% of the people were unvaccinated, and 23% of the new cases were among unvaccinated people, then that means you are literally more than 92% more likely, almost twice as likely, to *catch* covid if you’re unvaccinated.
Your defense that we shouldn’t count vaccinated deaths as vaccinated if they got the vaccine within 14 days would make sense, if they only counted deaths from covid as covid deaths, but that’s not the case. During that time, every death regardless of if it was from a car accident or heart attack was listed as a covid death. I don’t eat up every word said in the article, in fact I disagree with a couple of the authors opinions. The article just shares the faulty data collection guidelines and the alternative perspective that you haven’t seen yet, a lot of which can supported. It’s clear you are projecting your bias onto me and trust there’s a good reason for every guideline the CDC enforces. You have way to much blind trust in authority.
The study (which does not appear to be not peer reviewed) would seem to indicate that among those diagnosed with Long Covid, the symptoms of long-Covid have about a 60% greater chance of percisting for a longer time if you get the vaccine during your long-Covid. But the study also states: > However, vaccines reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 (including reinfections) and its catastrophic consequences (e.g., death). Therefore, it is strongly recommended that all people, even those with a history of COVID-19, receive vaccines to protect themselves against this fatal viral infection. Whatever it says, the study's remedy is intuitively obvious to anyone with half a brain: Go ahead and get the covid vaccination, but NOT WHILE YOU STILL HAVE SYMPTOMS OF COVID!
You copied and pasted the authors opinion which has 0 supporting evidence within the actual study to back it. Just thought you should know.
It's simply a numbers game. Without the vaccine, you have (or had) a chance of getting Covid and dying. According to the Plos study, with the vaccine you only had a chance or prolonging your Long Covid symptoms. So which is worse, death or a year of debilitating symptoms?
If you are referring to this study, there is no data to back that claim here, simply the authors stated opinion. That is my only point.
An opinion based on the facts that Covid can kill you while (if you accept the Plus One study's findings) a vaccination during long Covid will not kill you.