Conspiracy Theories #23 One of us! One of us! One of us!

[Poddular]

BREAKING: Myocarditis from mRNA Covid jabs likely killed hundreds of healthy young adults globally, a new study suggests

Top South Korean researchers say mRNA shots caused far more sudden cardiac deaths in people under 45 than doctors have realized or reported

alexberenson.substack.com

(Sudden cardiac death was the most serious and worrisome adverse reaction of COVID-19 vaccination in our study,” the researchers wrote. “[It] warrants the careful monitoring or warning of SCD as a potentially fatal complication of COVID-19 vaccination, especially in individuals who are ages under 45 years and receiving mRNA vaccination.”

The researchers added they believed Korea’s reporting systems had found patients that the United States’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, or VAERS, would not have caught - while also ensuring that all the reported cases were real.)


From the comments,
I am someone who resisted the "pressure" (aka "blackmail"; "bullying" etc) to take these injections, and yet find myself living with a badly vax-injured person (kidney failure, shingles (in the throat!), imbalance, partial loss of eyesight ... so far and let us hope that is all).

Identifying the negatives of these injections will not be enough to expose them.

It will also be necessary to debunk the myth that they "saved tens-hundreds-of millions of lives".

That will be the final line of defence the injection advocates will retreat to.
---

PETER HITCHENS: Lockdown was burning down home to destroy wasp's nest

PETER HITCHENS: A report published yesterday concluded the supposed benefits of lockdown were 'a drop in the bucket' when compared to the costs.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"I still meet plenty of people who insist that our only national mistake was not to lock down harder and sooner than we did. This is why I am quite sure many of those who supported these moves will never abandon their position.

Those of us who, like me, took the other view, are unlikely to shift either. Why is this?

I have come to the conclusion that it is really about whether people like being bossed about for their own good, or whether they do not. A surprising number of us turn out to love Big Brother. Not only could these illiberal types not get enough of doom-packed propaganda, decrees urging them to stay at home, keep their distance and wear masks, but they were sorry when it ended."

"Will the price of closing the economy, in inflation, taxes, destroyed businesses and lost jobs, ever be computed?
And what about the old people whose health was damaged by being forced to stay at home and abandon their active existences?"

"Even what seems to me to be clear evidence that masks were futile is disputed by others who insist they were effective. So those who wish to believe this was a good idea are difficult to persuade otherwise.
While I have my own opinions, and am very glad I expressed them, my heart sinks at the prospect of years of reports and counter-reports. Everything in this debate moves just out of our reach, like a mirage, as you try to grab it."

"Though my own view is pretty much the same as that of the report, will it persuade you? And will Lady Hallett's official Covid Inquiry solve the problem? I rather doubt it.
There is one good thing, which yesterday's document confirms. Debate was justified."

" it was reasonable for me to raise objections at the time. It is increasingly respectable to suspect something went badly wrong, that at least we might have gone too far, that smart scientific and medical voices such as Sunetra Gupta and Carl Heneghan were justified and responsible when they raised doubts; and that Jonathan Sumption, the retired Supreme Court judge, was also acting responsibly when he protested against the suppression of liberty by ill-made and excessive laws."

"Government document from around the same time spoke openly of fanning fear, advising officials: 'A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened . . . The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.'
In my view it was this, the acceptance of Chinese totalitarian methods as normal, the use of fear to isolate and crush opposition, that were plainly wrong and should never ever be allowed to happen again."

"There should have been free, two-sided debate. Whatever you think about the effectiveness of lockdowns, we must not allow ourselves to be frightened into the strong arms of Big Brother. Next time, he may be more reluctant to let us go free again."

 

[rainbowlemon]

How sad one of them was just 22.

 

[Poddular]

I thought you would want to know: MOST People’s Lungs Now Riddled With Microplastics Found in Disposable Face Masks

I’m not surprised. Probably you aren’t either. It just makes sense. As a headline makes clear: MOST People’s Lungs Now Riddled With Microplastics Found in Disposable Face Masks Here’s more: According to a new study published in the Science of the Total Environment

elsaiselsa.substack.com

From the comments,

"I don't remember masks being mandated where I live. They were recommended in certain places and enforced by some idiot shop-keepers etc. I wore one around my neck in case someone insisted but rarely pulled it up. So I doubt I have microplastics in my lungs.
I'm from Tasmania. We're the only Australian state that still has a conservative (called "Liberal" down here, ironically) state gov't. Our last premier (Gutwein) collapsed in his office shortly after getting the jab and was off work for several weeks, then resigned a few months later allegedly due to family reasons, but he was sick and fatigued. I think the top dogs knew it wasn't safe. It wasn't all rosy down here all the same. The police were pretty nasty with rule-breakers and anyone who tested positive & broke quarantine after border re-opened was dealt with cruelly. Also many healthcare workers were sacked for refusing the jab and our hospitals are really suffering due to staff shortages."

Still saw half a dozen people of all ages in masks in the supermarket yesterday.

 

[kev1974]

a lot of questions about who's blown up this dam in Ukraine, it's nordstream all over again
I am sure BBC Verify will be along to tell us the correct answer soon

 

[xyzcba]

I've been reading the childhood vaccine book Turtles All The Way Down, suggested on here, I think it was you Pod? Thank you for sharing it.

The book comes with a pdf download of all its references, all of which are taken from publicly available data. The authors happily invite any debunking, and not a single debunk has come forward. Because it's all fact.

Amazon product

It's actually horrifying the standard of 'clinical trials' these vax go through to be apparently 'safe and effective'.

""As summarized in the table above (Edit; which I can try and copy in if anyone is interested), "the manufacturers’ package inserts and FDA licensing documents indicate that none of the US routine childhood vaccines has been tested against a true placebo."
.
.

For example, this Prevnar vaccine is the Pneumococcal vaccine, given at 12 weeks & at 1 year in the UK.

"Prevnar Vaccine: The Prevnar vaccine brand protects against multiple strains of the pneumococcus bacterium that can cause pneumonia. The Prevnar-13 vaccine protects against 13 bacterial strains and has been in routine use in the US since 2010. The vaccine replaced the older-generation vaccine called Prevnar, which was introduced in 2000 and protected against 7 bacterial strains. How was Prevnar-13’s safety tested before approval? Browsing the vaccine’s package insert reveals that it was tested against its predecessor, Prevnar. In these trials, severe adverse events were reported in 1 in 12 infants receiving Prevnar-13 (8.2% of subjects) and slightly less often in Prevnar subjects (7.2%). But how many babies who participated in the trial would have experienced severe medical events if not vaccinated at all? That question cannot be answered because the Prevnar-13 trials did not include a placebo control group. Unsurprisingly, the rate of adverse events in the Prevnar-13 was generally similar to, albeit slightly higher than, the rate of its predecessor; thus, the vaccine was declared “safe” and approved for use by the FDA. The Prevnar-13 turtle stands on the back of the Prevnar turtle. And what is the Prevnar turtle standing on? The answer: On the back of another turtle, which is standing on nothing but thin air, as we shall immediately see. Prior to its approval, the Prevnar vaccine underwent a major clinical trial in the United States. In this trial approximately 17,000 infants received Prevnar and a similar number of controls received a vaccine against the meningococcus bacterium. A review of the scientific paper reporting the results of the trial reveals that about 1,000 subjects in total were hospitalized (about 1 in every 35 infants), and about 1 in 16 had emergency room (ER) visits within 30 days of receiving the vaccine. In addition to the Prevnar or meningococcal vaccine, all trial subjects received concurrent DTP or DTaP vaccines. (Note that administering the trial and control vaccines concurrently with other vaccines further obscures the results, as it impossible to determine which adverse events are due to which vaccine(s).) And what about that meningococcal vaccine received by the control group subjects? In 1998, the year its trial took place, there was no existing alternative to the Prevnar vaccine. Thus, there were no ethical reasons not to give the control group an inert saline injection. Yet the manufacturer chose to give the control group the meningococcal vaccine instead, despite the fact that it had not yet been approved by the FDA and was still “experimental”. Why would the manufacturer, as well as FDA and other licensing approval bodies, prefer using an experimental vaccine over the safe, economical, practical, and ethical alternative of a saline placebo? There can be only one answer: to hide the true rate of Prevnar’s adverse events."

.
.
.

"Mere Coincidence or Deliberately Flawed Design?
As we’ve clearly illustrated in the preceding sections, not one of the vaccines the CDC recommends all American children receive was tested for safety in a Phase 3 clinical trial where the control group received an inert placebo. All the vaccines reviewed in the preceding pages – of which tens of millions of doses are administered to infants and toddlers in the US every year – were tested in trials which did not include any control group at all, or ones in which the so-called control group received at least one other vaccine. Is it just coincidence that none of these vaccines has been tested against a true placebo, despite the fact that in many cases doing so would have been easier, cheaper, and yielded more valid results than the testing that was done? Is it just an accident of fate that the accepted methodology of all childhood vaccine trials obscures the real rate of adverse events of the new vaccine? That seems highly improbable. As explained at the start of this discussion, testing the safety of a next-generation vaccine against its predecessor is justifiable on ethical grounds: Withholding an existing and proven treatment from control group subjects would be immoral. However, there is no justification for conducting a chain of trials (turtle upon turtle upon turtle) that ultimately stands on nothing but air. Moreover, what possible rationale could justify trials for new vaccines wherein the control groups receive other (sometimes experimental) vaccines? Would a safety trial for a new cigarette have any credibility at all if the “control” group consisted of subjects who smoked a different kind of cigarette? Whether or not you believe this trial methodology is ethical, its consequence remains the same: The true rate of adverse events of routine childhood vaccines is virtually unknown; therefore, there is no scientific basis for claiming they’re safe. The fact that we don’t know how often childhood vaccines hurt the children who receive them casts a dark shadow over the legitimacy of vaccine programs the world over. But that is not all. Even worse, as we shall shortly see, safety trials conducted for some childhood vaccines blatantly and seriously violate the medical code of ethics. In any vaccine clinical trial, a balance must be struck between the vaccine’s potential benefits (disease protection) and potential risks (adverse events). When control subjects in vaccine trials receive another type of vaccine, even if it’s done in order to obfuscate the real rate of adverse events of the vaccine being tested, the compound they receive is at least of some potential benefit to them. However, in the rotavirus vaccine trials this imperative ethical risk-to-benefit balance was blatantly violated."
.
.
.

Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth

Foreword and Introduction. Narrated.

metatron.substack.com

@Freedomofspeech89 I think you'd enjoy this book.

 

[Freedomofspeech89]

I've been reading the childhood vaccine book Turtles All The Way Down, suggested on here, I think it was you Pod? Thank you for sharing it.

The book comes with a pdf download of all its references, all of which are taken from publicly available data. The authors happily invite any debunking, and not a single debunk has come forward. Because it's all fact.

Amazon product

It's actually horrifying the standard of 'clinical trials' these vax go through to be apparently 'safe and effective'.

""As summarized in the table above (Edit; which I can try and copy in if anyone is interested), "the manufacturers’ package inserts and FDA licensing documents indicate that none of the US routine childhood vaccines has been tested against a true placebo."
.
.

For example, this Prevnar vaccine is the Pneumococcal vaccine, given at 12 weeks & at 1 year in the UK.

"Prevnar Vaccine: The Prevnar vaccine brand protects against multiple strains of the pneumococcus bacterium that can cause pneumonia. The Prevnar-13 vaccine protects against 13 bacterial strains and has been in routine use in the US since 2010. The vaccine replaced the older-generation vaccine called Prevnar, which was introduced in 2000 and protected against 7 bacterial strains. How was Prevnar-13’s safety tested before approval? Browsing the vaccine’s package insert reveals that it was tested against its predecessor, Prevnar. In these trials, severe adverse events were reported in 1 in 12 infants receiving Prevnar-13 (8.2% of subjects) and slightly less often in Prevnar subjects (7.2%). But how many babies who participated in the trial would have experienced severe medical events if not vaccinated at all? That question cannot be answered because the Prevnar-13 trials did not include a placebo control group. Unsurprisingly, the rate of adverse events in the Prevnar-13 was generally similar to, albeit slightly higher than, the rate of its predecessor; thus, the vaccine was declared “safe” and approved for use by the FDA. The Prevnar-13 turtle stands on the back of the Prevnar turtle. And what is the Prevnar turtle standing on? The answer: On the back of another turtle, which is standing on nothing but thin air, as we shall immediately see. Prior to its approval, the Prevnar vaccine underwent a major clinical trial in the United States. In this trial approximately 17,000 infants received Prevnar and a similar number of controls received a vaccine against the meningococcus bacterium. A review of the scientific paper reporting the results of the trial reveals that about 1,000 subjects in total were hospitalized (about 1 in every 35 infants), and about 1 in 16 had emergency room (ER) visits within 30 days of receiving the vaccine. In addition to the Prevnar or meningococcal vaccine, all trial subjects received concurrent DTP or DTaP vaccines. (Note that administering the trial and control vaccines concurrently with other vaccines further obscures the results, as it impossible to determine which adverse events are due to which vaccine(s).) And what about that meningococcal vaccine received by the control group subjects? In 1998, the year its trial took place, there was no existing alternative to the Prevnar vaccine. Thus, there were no ethical reasons not to give the control group an inert saline injection. Yet the manufacturer chose to give the control group the meningococcal vaccine instead, despite the fact that it had not yet been approved by the FDA and was still “experimental”. Why would the manufacturer, as well as FDA and other licensing approval bodies, prefer using an experimental vaccine over the safe, economical, practical, and ethical alternative of a saline placebo? There can be only one answer: to hide the true rate of Prevnar’s adverse events."

.
.
.

"Mere Coincidence or Deliberately Flawed Design?
As we’ve clearly illustrated in the preceding sections, not one of the vaccines the CDC recommends all American children receive was tested for safety in a Phase 3 clinical trial where the control group received an inert placebo. All the vaccines reviewed in the preceding pages – of which tens of millions of doses are administered to infants and toddlers in the US every year – were tested in trials which did not include any control group at all, or ones in which the so-called control group received at least one other vaccine. Is it just coincidence that none of these vaccines has been tested against a true placebo, despite the fact that in many cases doing so would have been easier, cheaper, and yielded more valid results than the testing that was done? Is it just an accident of fate that the accepted methodology of all childhood vaccine trials obscures the real rate of adverse events of the new vaccine? That seems highly improbable. As explained at the start of this discussion, testing the safety of a next-generation vaccine against its predecessor is justifiable on ethical grounds: Withholding an existing and proven treatment from control group subjects would be immoral. However, there is no justification for conducting a chain of trials (turtle upon turtle upon turtle) that ultimately stands on nothing but air. Moreover, what possible rationale could justify trials for new vaccines wherein the control groups receive other (sometimes experimental) vaccines? Would a safety trial for a new cigarette have any credibility at all if the “control” group consisted of subjects who smoked a different kind of cigarette? Whether or not you believe this trial methodology is ethical, its consequence remains the same: The true rate of adverse events of routine childhood vaccines is virtually unknown; therefore, there is no scientific basis for claiming they’re safe. The fact that we don’t know how often childhood vaccines hurt the children who receive them casts a dark shadow over the legitimacy of vaccine programs the world over. But that is not all. Even worse, as we shall shortly see, safety trials conducted for some childhood vaccines blatantly and seriously violate the medical code of ethics. In any vaccine clinical trial, a balance must be struck between the vaccine’s potential benefits (disease protection) and potential risks (adverse events). When control subjects in vaccine trials receive another type of vaccine, even if it’s done in order to obfuscate the real rate of adverse events of the vaccine being tested, the compound they receive is at least of some potential benefit to them. However, in the rotavirus vaccine trials this imperative ethical risk-to-benefit balance was blatantly violated."
.
.
.

Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth

Foreword and Introduction. Narrated.

metatron.substack.com

@Freedomofspeech89 I think you'd enjoy this book.

Thanks @xyzcba. I will definitely look into this. I keep getting nagged to have the whooping cough vaccine but I’m not sure I want it. Especially as this will be third time getting it!

 

[xyzcba]

Thanks @xyzcba. I will definitely look into this. I keep getting nagged to have the whooping cough vaccine but I’m not sure I want it. Especially as this will be third time getting it!

If I come across anything about it in the book I'll let you know. Hope your pregnancy is going well xx

 

[Freedomofspeech89]

If I come across anything about it in the book I'll let you know. Hope your pregnancy is going well xx

Thank you! Yes all going smoothly thankfully. Found out we are having a boy which is really nice. Poor thing being born into this mental world

 

[xyzcba]

Thank you! Yes all going smoothly thankfully. Found out we are having a boy which is really nice. Poor thing being born into this mental world

Ah Congratulations!
I know, I do wonder what sort of world they're going to live in as adults

 

[Freedomofspeech89]

Ah Congratulations!
I know, I do wonder what sort of world they're going to live in as adults

Hopefully Bill Gates will be long dead by then

 

[daydreamer95]

Thank you! Yes all going smoothly thankfully. Found out we are having a boy which is really nice. Poor thing being born into this mental world

Congratulations take good care of yourself

 

[rainbowlemon]

Maybe it's just me, but I personally think Bill is just a convenient actor being used as a poster child.

The real overlords are cats.
---

Thank you! Yes all going smoothly thankfully. Found out we are having a boy which is really nice. Poor thing being born into this mental world

Aww congratulations! Have you already picked out a name?

You should check out the "names you hate thread here".

 

[rainbowlemon]

The start of the Wall-e future for us?

Apple Vision Pro is introduced as the first "spatial computer", not a mere AR/VR headset

It's coming next year for the princely sum of $3,499. It's here. After years and years of rumors and speculation, today Apple has made the Vision Pro...

www.gsmarena.com

---

 

[Misbehaving]

I've been reading the childhood vaccine book Turtles All The Way Down, suggested on here, I think it was you Pod? Thank you for sharing it.

The book comes with a pdf download of all its references, all of which are taken from publicly available data. The authors happily invite any debunking, and not a single debunk has come forward. Because it's all fact.

Amazon product

It's actually horrifying the standard of 'clinical trials' these vax go through to be apparently 'safe and effective'.

""As summarized in the table above (Edit; which I can try and copy in if anyone is interested), "the manufacturers’ package inserts and FDA licensing documents indicate that none of the US routine childhood vaccines has been tested against a true placebo."
.
.

For example, this Prevnar vaccine is the Pneumococcal vaccine, given at 12 weeks & at 1 year in the UK.

"Prevnar Vaccine: The Prevnar vaccine brand protects against multiple strains of the pneumococcus bacterium that can cause pneumonia. The Prevnar-13 vaccine protects against 13 bacterial strains and has been in routine use in the US since 2010. The vaccine replaced the older-generation vaccine called Prevnar, which was introduced in 2000 and protected against 7 bacterial strains. How was Prevnar-13’s safety tested before approval? Browsing the vaccine’s package insert reveals that it was tested against its predecessor, Prevnar. In these trials, severe adverse events were reported in 1 in 12 infants receiving Prevnar-13 (8.2% of subjects) and slightly less often in Prevnar subjects (7.2%). But how many babies who participated in the trial would have experienced severe medical events if not vaccinated at all? That question cannot be answered because the Prevnar-13 trials did not include a placebo control group. Unsurprisingly, the rate of adverse events in the Prevnar-13 was generally similar to, albeit slightly higher than, the rate of its predecessor; thus, the vaccine was declared “safe” and approved for use by the FDA. The Prevnar-13 turtle stands on the back of the Prevnar turtle. And what is the Prevnar turtle standing on? The answer: On the back of another turtle, which is standing on nothing but thin air, as we shall immediately see. Prior to its approval, the Prevnar vaccine underwent a major clinical trial in the United States. In this trial approximately 17,000 infants received Prevnar and a similar number of controls received a vaccine against the meningococcus bacterium. A review of the scientific paper reporting the results of the trial reveals that about 1,000 subjects in total were hospitalized (about 1 in every 35 infants), and about 1 in 16 had emergency room (ER) visits within 30 days of receiving the vaccine. In addition to the Prevnar or meningococcal vaccine, all trial subjects received concurrent DTP or DTaP vaccines. (Note that administering the trial and control vaccines concurrently with other vaccines further obscures the results, as it impossible to determine which adverse events are due to which vaccine(s).) And what about that meningococcal vaccine received by the control group subjects? In 1998, the year its trial took place, there was no existing alternative to the Prevnar vaccine. Thus, there were no ethical reasons not to give the control group an inert saline injection. Yet the manufacturer chose to give the control group the meningococcal vaccine instead, despite the fact that it had not yet been approved by the FDA and was still “experimental”. Why would the manufacturer, as well as FDA and other licensing approval bodies, prefer using an experimental vaccine over the safe, economical, practical, and ethical alternative of a saline placebo? There can be only one answer: to hide the true rate of Prevnar’s adverse events."

.
.
.

"Mere Coincidence or Deliberately Flawed Design?
As we’ve clearly illustrated in the preceding sections, not one of the vaccines the CDC recommends all American children receive was tested for safety in a Phase 3 clinical trial where the control group received an inert placebo. All the vaccines reviewed in the preceding pages – of which tens of millions of doses are administered to infants and toddlers in the US every year – were tested in trials which did not include any control group at all, or ones in which the so-called control group received at least one other vaccine. Is it just coincidence that none of these vaccines has been tested against a true placebo, despite the fact that in many cases doing so would have been easier, cheaper, and yielded more valid results than the testing that was done? Is it just an accident of fate that the accepted methodology of all childhood vaccine trials obscures the real rate of adverse events of the new vaccine? That seems highly improbable. As explained at the start of this discussion, testing the safety of a next-generation vaccine against its predecessor is justifiable on ethical grounds: Withholding an existing and proven treatment from control group subjects would be immoral. However, there is no justification for conducting a chain of trials (turtle upon turtle upon turtle) that ultimately stands on nothing but air. Moreover, what possible rationale could justify trials for new vaccines wherein the control groups receive other (sometimes experimental) vaccines? Would a safety trial for a new cigarette have any credibility at all if the “control” group consisted of subjects who smoked a different kind of cigarette? Whether or not you believe this trial methodology is ethical, its consequence remains the same: The true rate of adverse events of routine childhood vaccines is virtually unknown; therefore, there is no scientific basis for claiming they’re safe. The fact that we don’t know how often childhood vaccines hurt the children who receive them casts a dark shadow over the legitimacy of vaccine programs the world over. But that is not all. Even worse, as we shall shortly see, safety trials conducted for some childhood vaccines blatantly and seriously violate the medical code of ethics. In any vaccine clinical trial, a balance must be struck between the vaccine’s potential benefits (disease protection) and potential risks (adverse events). When control subjects in vaccine trials receive another type of vaccine, even if it’s done in order to obfuscate the real rate of adverse events of the vaccine being tested, the compound they receive is at least of some potential benefit to them. However, in the rotavirus vaccine trials this imperative ethical risk-to-benefit balance was blatantly violated."
.
.
.

Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth

Foreword and Introduction. Narrated.

metatron.substack.com

@Freedomofspeech89 I think you'd enjoy this book.

Oh I'm glad you found the book useful I thought it sounded very informative and the author put a lot of research into it.

Hope everyone is well

 

[Poddular]

Oh I'm glad you found the book useful I thought it sounded very informative and the author put a lot of research into it.

Hope everyone is well

Lovely to hear from you misbehaving.
I think xyzcba has you to thank for recommending it here.
I wish more people knew what passes for trials and evidence regarding vaccine safety and efficiency.

 

[monga]

What the fecks going on

---

 

[rainbowlemon]

Just need to ask Malcom.



Second one Is GSK.

 

[xyzcba]

Oh I'm glad you found the book useful I thought it sounded very informative and the author put a lot of research into it.

Hope everyone is well

Oh it was you Mis! Thank you so much. It really is hugely informative. I wish all Doctors would read it. But of course it isn't in line with what big pharma want people to know, though the information is publicly out there. Hidden in plain sight as always.
It really angers me. How they could endanger so many children's lives to trial these vxs. And people trusted them! Sick.

Hope you're well xx

 

[rainbowlemon]

Hi peeps.

Song for today:

 

[rainbowlemon]

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has revoked authorization of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid vaccine after it was paused over rare blood clot concerns, which sent demand plummeting."

"Less than a month after the J&J vaccine was granted emergency use authorization from the FDA, it became mired in controversy over a small but growing number of severe blood clotting disorders called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) in people who got the shot. "

Glad I waited longer than a month.

J&J's COVID vaccine taken by 19 MILLION Americans is pulled by FDA

The Food and Drug Administration has revoked authorization of Johnson & Johnson's Covid vaccine as demand for the once-promising shot has plummeted.

www.dailymail.co.uk

---

Safe and effective. They're only Seizures: In days 0-21, 61 seizures occurred post-vaccination. In days 22-42, 43 seizures occurred post-vaccination. In total, 104 seizures occurred post-vaccination.

Safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Among Young Children in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

We previously assessed safety of monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines using weekly surveillance monitoring known as rapid cycle analysis (RCA) among individuals aged 5 years and older, identifying an increased risk for myocarditis and pericarditis in...

publications.aap.org