Health & Fitness Corona is in full swing and its not Joke !

[kiran6680]

Off course not, there's no taking away from the wonders of what knowledge and science has done for us.

When "experts" are mentioned, if someone primarily recalls the few problems out of the many more and bigger benefits of experts, that is not consistent with this position of "wonders of science" .

E.g. if someone mentions food, and gets a response that food causes food poisoning. In spite of it having happened sometimes, the association of food with poisoning is objectively wrong. It's not just another viewpoint that needs to be respected. Plain and simple incorrect. Same is the case with the association of "experts" with negativity here.

Despite the gratitude, my concern is that modern scientific mistakes can potentially result in extinction events (with a low probability, but still a risk not worth taking). In that context, the absence of debate around gain of function research and the suppression / ignoring of existing evidence of COVID origins or risks of MRNA vaccine technology in its current form, must be addressed

This is too vague. What exactly is being suppressed by whom?

Though since both the examples are related to Covid, I'd like to remind the readers that this was the only case in living memory, maybe ever, where nearly the entirety of public saw "science" happen live. By science, I mean fact finding by the scientific process. A vast majority of people don't know that science is always murky at the frontier. So they criticize the process they were so far ignorant of. FYI this chaotic process is what has given rise to much of the progress in last 400 years.

 

[TEUser2K1]

Just wao!

For real?

User name please.

@rootyme

Top Harvard cancer researchers accused of scientific fraud; 37 studies affected

Researchers accused of manipulating data images with copy-and-paste.

arstechnica.com

"The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School, is seeking to retract six scientific studies and correct 31 others that were published by the institute’s top researchers, including its CEO. The researchers are accused of manipulating data images with simple methods, primarily with copy-and-paste in image editing software, such as Adobe Photoshop."

@Neotheone
Which part of my comment came out ambiguous.

 

[Neotheone]

When "experts" are mentioned, if someone primarily recalls the few problems out of the many more and bigger benefits of experts, that is not consistent with this position of "wonders of science"

My broad point is that as I and many others believe, many experts are biased or influenced by vested interests - and scientific organizations are increasingly getting bureaucratic and scientific journals relying more on reputation than pure reasonableness of arguments being proposed in academic papers. It is not an inconsequential minority, and unless this is discussed and rectified, we could have difficult times ahead.

This is too vague. What exactly is being suppressed by whom?

Well, as I see it, the suppression is more of an emergent phenomenon, and its happening in two particular examples.

1. Origin of SARS-COV-2 Debate. If you research the paper called "proximal origins", and the revelations through FOIA that have followed since, including the leaked DARPA proposal called DEFUSE, you would see the point.

2. Efficacy of vaccines : I always believed that those who talk about vaccines as a potential risk are either paranoid or just not scientifically literate. However, if you have read the quality of arguments used to push MRNA vaccines onto masses (and the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine), and the poor quality of VAERS reporting almost globally, and the rising incidences of heart attacks in the young, there needs to be a reassessment of the risk-reward based on real life large samples of recipients' health outcomes vs comparable samples from unvaccinated groups.

And it is clear to me, that science operates at the edge and deals with the unknown, and I know it is easy to criticize, but it is also important to criticize when you have reason on your side. There is no justification for blatant conflicts of interests at drug regulatory institution boards, non-reporting of details related to clinical trials related issues (the US justice system had to force details out), and the scientific method is definitely not consistent with shutting down criticism from qualified MDs who criticized mandatory vaccination through vaccines that were literally experimental technology in case of MRNA vaccines. And now boosters are being approved based on no booster specific clinical trial based on something called "correlates of protection". I presume you know about it, but feel free to objectively read about that if you will.

FYI this chaotic process is what has given rise to much of the progress in last 400 years.

While that is true, unfortunately you presume my ignorance. My submission here is that past progress is no guarantee that we will not succumb to pitfalls of pursuing dangerous gain of function research with arguably no benefits and potential pandemic consequences in the future as well. Also, vaccines are generally useful, but not eliminating conflicts of interests at institutions that approve vaccines will help nobody and can potentially create worse situations, including one where unforeseen side-effects can impact the future of humanity, especially when new technologies are mandatorily pushed, in some cases even against' people's will by making them mandatory at work or college.

 

[kiran6680]

My broad point is that as I and many others believe, many experts are biased or influenced by vested interests - and scientific organizations are increasingly getting bureaucratic and scientific journals relying more on reputation than pure reasonableness of arguments being proposed in academic papers. It is not an inconsequential minority, and unless this is discussed and rectified, we could have difficult times ahead.

Well, as I see it, the suppression is more of an emergent phenomenon, and its happening in two particular examples.

1. Origin of SARS-COV-2 Debate. If you research the paper called "proximal origins", and the revelations through FOIA that have followed since, including the leaked DARPA proposal called DEFUSE, you would see the point.

2. Efficacy of vaccines : I always believed that those who talk about vaccines as a potential risk are either paranoid or just not scientifically literate. However, if you have read the quality of arguments used to push MRNA vaccines onto masses (and the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine), and the poor quality of VAERS reporting almost globally, and the rising incidences of heart attacks in the young, there needs to be a reassessment of the risk-reward based on real life large samples of recipients' health outcomes vs comparable samples from unvaccinated groups.

And it is clear to me, that science operates at the edge and deals with the unknown, and I know it is easy to criticize, but it is also important to criticize when you have reason on your side. There is no justification for blatant conflicts of interests at drug regulatory institution boards, non-reporting of details related to clinical trials related issues (the US justice system had to force details out), and the scientific method is definitely not consistent with shutting down criticism from qualified MDs who criticized mandatory vaccination through vaccines that were literally experimental technology in case of MRNA vaccines. And now boosters are being approved based on no booster specific clinical trial based on something called "correlates of protection". I presume you know about it, but feel free to objectively read about that if you will.



While that is true, unfortunately you presume my ignorance. My submission here is that past progress is no guarantee that we will not succumb to pitfalls of pursuing dangerous gain of function research with arguably no benefits and potential pandemic consequences in the future as well. Also, vaccines are generally useful, but not eliminating conflicts of interests at institutions that approve vaccines will help nobody and can potentially create worse situations, including one where unforeseen side-effects can impact the future of humanity, especially when new technologies are mandatorily pushed, in some cases even against' people's will by making them mandatory at work or college.

This is completely irrelevant. Let me put back the context here :

1. Uninformed anti-intellectual people here are triggered by the mere mention of experts, and start a rant. Without even arguing against the substance of what the "experts" say, which of course, can be wrong.

2. You support them by finding needle in haystack worth of questionable decisions by some experts. This delegitimizes "experts" in general, not just those experts that made those specific decisions. Guess who can solve the factual problems in the statements of "experts" ? Other experts. By delegitimizing experts at large, you make that difficult.

3. Then you further support the uninformed statements by utterly getting confused between political decisions and the scientific process. A huge majority of the questionable decisions you mention in your posts are political decisions, some others are business decisions. Let me just list a few political decisions you are arguing against, while under the umbrella of arguing against scientific experts :
A. push MRNA vaccines onto masses
B. the poor quality of VAERS reporting almost globally
C. there needs to be a reassessment of the risk-reward based on ...
D. blatant conflicts of interests at drug regulatory institution boards
E. non-reporting of details related to clinical trials related issues
F. shutting down criticism
G. boosters are being approved
H. pursuing dangerous gain of function research
I. not eliminating conflicts of interests at institutions
J. when new technologies are mandatorily pushed

Experts in science have nothing to do with these decisions. Are some of these decisions also experts in science, or were in the past ? Irrelevant. Because these decisions have been made by them as political office holders.

 

[Neotheone]

This is completely irrelevant. Let me put back the context here :

1. Uninformed anti-intellectual people here are triggered by the mere mention of experts, and start a rant. Without even arguing against the substance of what the "experts" say, which of course, can be wrong.

2. You support them by finding needle in haystack worth of questionable decisions by some experts. This delegitimizes "experts" in general, not just those experts that made those specific decisions. Guess who can solve the factual problems in the statements of "experts" ? Other experts. By delegitimizing experts at large, you make that difficult.

3. Then you further support the uninformed statements by utterly getting confused between political decisions and the scientific process. A huge majority of the questionable decisions you mention in your posts are political decisions, some others are business decisions. Let me just list a few political decisions you are arguing against, while under the umbrella of arguing against scientific experts :
A. push MRNA vaccines onto masses
B. the poor quality of VAERS reporting almost globally
C. there needs to be a reassessment of the risk-reward based on ...
D. blatant conflicts of interests at drug regulatory institution boards
E. non-reporting of details related to clinical trials related issues
F. shutting down criticism
G. boosters are being approved
H. pursuing dangerous gain of function research
I. not eliminating conflicts of interests at institutions
J. when new technologies are mandatorily pushed

Experts in science have nothing to do with these decisions. Are some of these decisions also experts in science, or w

This is completely irrelevant. Let me put back the context here :

1. Uninformed anti-intellectual people here are triggered by the mere mention of experts, and start a rant. Without even arguing against the substance of what the "experts" say, which of course, can be wrong.

2. You support them by finding needle in haystack worth of questionable decisions by some experts. This delegitimizes "experts" in general, not just those experts that made those specific decisions. Guess who can solve the factual problems in the statements of "experts" ? Other experts. By delegitimizing experts at large, you make that difficult.

3. Then you further support the uninformed statements by utterly getting confused between political decisions and the scientific process. A huge majority of the questionable decisions you mention in your posts are political decisions, some others are business decisions. Let me just list a few political decisions you are arguing against, while under the umbrella of arguing against scientific experts :
A. push MRNA vaccines onto masses
B. the poor quality of VAERS reporting almost globally
C. there needs to be a reassessment of the risk-reward based on ...
D. blatant conflicts of interests at drug regulatory institution boards
E. non-reporting of details related to clinical trials related issues
F. shutting down criticism
G. boosters are being approved
H. pursuing dangerous gain of function research
I. not eliminating conflicts of interests at institutions
J. when new technologies are mandatorily pushed

Experts in science have nothing to do with these decisions. Are some of these decisions also experts in science, or were in the past ? Irrelevant. Because these decisions have been made by them as political office holders.

I have some sympathy for your point on any rants at the mere use of the term experts, but I have sympathy for such behavior among the uninformed. I doubt that will ever go. Anyway lets park that for some time later since we do not have significant disagreement there.

You support them by finding needle in haystack worth of questionable decisions by some experts

That seems to me to be a straw-man / misinterpretation. I do not mean to support or reject anyone else, my point was that experts are increasingly getting that label and recognition by media and authorities based on their closeness to power / conflicts of interest. I do not call anyone an uninformed person, but it appears that such practices and the general trend to expect people to toe the line by calling folks like"Fauci" science actually fuels a lot of distrust.

Experts in science have nothing to do with these decisions. Are some of these decisions also experts in science, or were in the past ? Irrelevant. Because these decisions have been made by them as political office holders.

I have strong disagreement with this. The scientific establishment has been too politicized, and areas have been significantly captured by corporate interests. This includes the most reputed journals, drug approval authorities, and often the only studies that are funded are the ones that pander to corporate interests. Government funding is still a thing in the west but that also flows in alignment with bureaucratic interests / corporate interests.

To me, it is unfair to ignore that science and politics / economics do not exist in a vacuum. The interplay always has been, always will be. When ignored, the political and economic forces take the practice of science away from the pursuit of the best possible outcomes. Sometimes it can even be potentially threatening to humanity - e.g. gain of function/mindless vaccine pushing. I hope that makes my perspective clearer.

Example: Fauci had influence on decisions and policy around gain of function. He is close to large pharmaceutical interests and political players. Once he chose to tell congress that no gain of function research was done, by slyly defining gain of function, thousands of those who are working on gain of function could testify against it, but that truth becomes meaningless and the scientific process becomes a joke.

 

[TEUser2K1]

Agree with @Neotheone regarding side effects from vaccines, as a person who suffered serious weakness for ~2 days after taking 3 doses of Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Anybody with commonsense would've understood in 2 attempts, but I was so much a believer of vaccine, took the 3rd dose too which convinced me fully. Now, if another bout of Covid19 happen, I will try my best to avoid Pfizer vaccine at least.
Heard from many others about their experiences, even the nurse administering vaccine was not as enthusiast as me.
But even taking about this to close relatives used to give extremely weird looks. Sad reality.

 

[Neotheone]

Agree with @Neotheone regarding side effects from vaccines, as a person who suffered serious weakness for ~2 days after taking 3 doses of Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Anybody with commonsense would've understood in 2 attempts, but I was so much a believer of vaccine, took the 3rd dose too which convinced me fully. Now, if another bout of Covid19 happen, I will try my best to avoid Pfizer vaccine at least.
Heard from many others about their experiences, even the nurse administering vaccine was not as enthusiast as me.
But even taking about this to close relatives used to give extremely weird looks. Sad reality.

Thanks for sharing this. I guess I was in your boat as well, but luckily I was in India so I took the slightly less bad ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 (Astrazeneca). I was lucky, but my sister suffered moderate VAERS (swelling in lymph nodes and allergic reaction) and nobody at the vaccination center / let her report it because doctors refused to acknowledge it as a side effect. Supreme court has acknowledged these reporting related issues but I'm not sure if anything has changed since then. Eventually she had to get herself treated and her issues have not yet gone after nearly 3 years since the first shot.

I have a background in science and can read scientific literature so I decided to start reading a lot of the underlying research and down the rabbit hole I went. The way they calculate vaccine efficacy itself is itself quite questionable at best. As I see it, there has been a significant corporate takeover of public health decision making and what passes off as science in that context.

 

[TEUser2K1]

@Neotheone
Sad to hear about your sister's VAERS side effect, hope it will resolve as soon as possible.
Thankfully, my condition was not that severe at all, just 1-2 days mild to heavy fever, severe exhaustion, nausea, etc.
At least 2 of my colleagues had similar symptoms as mine, one had to attend her per-scheduled zoom meeting lying down on bed, with her husband assisting her handling laptop.
My friend's young son, heavily built, was suffering from similar symptoms together with upset stomach, dude lost lot of his weight, recovered later though. I met a guy who had to take a vaccine compulsory during initial trial phase (was working in military compound, not in military), that guy was in ICU for above a week, got semi-paralyzed with slight limp on left leg and recovering, all the while outside India without family support, only friends and colleagues to look after...

 

[TEUser2K1]

Canadian Doctors Admit Covid ‘Booster’ Shot Paralyzed Woman, Offer to Euthanize Her to ‘Make Up for It’

Canadian Doctors Admit Covid 'Booster' Shot Paralyzed Woman, Offer to Euthanize Her to 'Make Up for It' - Slay News

Canadian doctors have admitted that a Covid "booster" shot from Moderna is responsible for a young Ontario woman now being paralyzed for the rest of her life.

slaynews.com

 

[nRiTeCh]

Thanks for sharing this. I guess I was in your boat as well, but luckily I was in India so I took the slightly less bad ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 (Astrazeneca). I was lucky, but my sister suffered moderate VAERS (swelling in lymph nodes and allergic reaction) and nobody at the vaccination center / let her report it because doctors refused to acknowledge it as a side effect. Supreme court has acknowledged these reporting related issues but I'm not sure if anything has changed since then. Eventually she had to get herself treated and her issues have not yet gone after nearly 3 years since the first shot.

I have a background in science and can read scientific literature so I decided to start reading a lot of the underlying research and down the rabbit hole I went. The way they calculate vaccine efficacy itself is itself quite questionable at best. As I see it, there has been a significant corporate takeover of public health decision making and what passes off as science in that context.

The only reason I haven't risked taking a covid vaccination yet as nobody wants to talk about side effects..the govt, IMA and doctors. They simply neglect or cover-up any side-effects stating as if they have been told to do so under pressure.
Within my family there have been few side-effects cases though they subsided but took a years long time.

Thing is no media, govt, politicos, ima etc. want to talk about it or just ignore it as baseless as everyone says just get the damn vaccination else you are not eligible for this and that. This is where half of the mass went for it and few suffered but these few % cannot be ignored.
Even tested medications have side-effects differing from person-person and that is considered NORMAL but not covid vaccination..WTF!

 

[blr_p]

The only reason I haven't risked taking a covid vaccination yet as nobody wants to talk about side effects..the govt, IMA and doctors. They simply neglect or cover-up any side-effects stating as if they have been told to do so under pressure.
Within my family there have been few side-effects cases though they subsided but took a year long time.

Thing is no media, govt, politicos, ima etc. want to tlak about it or just ignore it as baseless as everyone says just get the damn vaccination else you are not eligible for this and that. This is where half of the mass went for it and few suffered but these few % cannot be ignored.
Even tested medications have side-effects differing from person-person and that is considered NORMAL but not covid vaccination..WTF!

Some time back I spoke to my doctor about getting vaxxed and his reply surprised me.

Covishield and covaxin are OK. Pfizer and Moderna are not.

Think where the vaccine hesistancy was the most. Not here or in the UK. It was mostly from the US. They don't normally get covaxin or Covishield there.

So everything you said applies more to those vaccines than the ones we get here.

 

[nRiTeCh]

Some time back I spoke to my doctor about getting vaxxed and his reply surprised me.

Covishield and covaxin are OK. Pfizer and Moderna are not.

Think where the vaccine hesistancy was the most. Not here or in the UK. It was mostly from the US. They don't normally get covaxin or Covishield there.

So everything you said applies more to those vaccines than the ones we get here.

I'm referring to Covishield and covaxin only!

 

[Neotheone]

no media, govt, politicos, ima etc. want to tlak about it or just ignore it as baseless

In my view, large economic interests have near complete control of narratives in the modern world and these entities (companies) are amoral, and can not think beyond next few quarter's profitablity.

No matter what scientific evidence is presented, labels of anti-vaxers are used to scuttle all criticism instead of any meaningful attempt at probing risks. Declining human attention spans and social media driven misinformation compounds the problem. Yet, I guess it is consistent with human history. I am sure rumors and big lies probably had a part to play, along with powerful entrenched interests, in the fall of most civilizations. However, I desperately hope that either I am wrong, or we somehow course correct.

Covishield and covaxin are OK. Pfizer and Moderna are not.

I am not completely sure what this claim is based on, as chadox1 ncov-19 (Astrazeneca)'s self claimed efficacy (essentially estimate of risk-reward balance) was much lower than pfizer and moderna's at stage 3 trials stage. Yet, there can be a reasonable hypothesis that unknown risks could be lower, as MRNA vaccines (moderna, phizer) are a new technology and can potentially have higher unknown risks.

However, we now know based on some data and research that known risks across vaccines are already worse than what was estimated at the trial stage. We have no such analysis on COVAXIN, given the "exemplary data transparency" by our government (although risks could be lower, as it was based on the most time-tested vaccine design approach (inactivated viral vector).

Back to the recent report on study of risks, even this news coverage is sugar coated with arguments that risk of vaccine is less than risk of COVID. Yet, nobody can scientifically claim that long term risks would not turn out to be higher than what trials estimated. This is because trials were not even designed to look for long term risks.

Global study links COVID-19 vaccines with heart, brain disorders

The COVID-19 vaccines that emerged as a beacon of hope in the fight against the deadly virus during the pandemic are back in the news again following a new study that has linked the shots to rare brain, heart and blood disorders.

www.livemint.com

 

[TEUser2K1]

@nRiTeCh
I turned up +ve after 5th day of 1st PFizer mRNA vaccination.
I took PFizer mRNA Covid19 vaccine second dose just ~5 days after Covid19 recovery. They said it was recommended to take vaccination sooner, if infection was mild or lower form.
On 3rd doze, when nurse heard I took second vaccination quickly after infection, she nodded in despair.
I was a vaccine enthusiast (there were jokes in media about vaccine reluctant people then, I'm sorry and now feel shameful that I fell for it), spent time and excess money just to get PFizer mRNA Covid19 vaccine the earliest possible. I got initial doze much much before many people were able to and was proud of it !
Was very very tired after all 3 vaccinations, though didn't get chronic conditions I needed assistance from others, I will never risk another mRNA Covid19 vaccine again, whole episode is a sad eye opener episode for me, giving trust issues now.

 

[TinTinSnowy]

Many folks think vaccines mean zero chance of getting sick, but that's not the case. Vaccines just give your immune system a boost in fighting off diseases, and measuring how well they work is tricky. We mostly have to guess based on studies. Still, vaccines have done wonders in wiping out diseases, boosting survival rates, and making life better overall.

There is a lack of literacy about adult vaccination in India and globally. Unlike vaccines for children, adult vaccination is costly and not subsidized. However, it can prevent numerous health issues and potentially enhance quality of life. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4928530/

I received vaccinations for rabies (preventive - it's a very dangerous disease, with near-impossible survival chances once symptoms show), Hepatitis B (newer generation kids get it free under the national immunization program), and the annual influenza shot. There are more vaccines available, but I wasn't recommended for them and will take them as I get older.
I strongly believe that those who can afford it should participate in adult vaccination to help make the world a better place.

 

[int86]

Many folks think vaccines mean zero chance of getting sick, but that's not the case. Vaccines just give your immune system a boost in fighting off diseases, and measuring how well they work is tricky. We mostly have to guess based on studies. Still, vaccines have done wonders in wiping out diseases, boosting survival rates, and making life better overall.

There is a lack of literacy about adult vaccination in India and globally. Unlike vaccines for children, adult vaccination is costly and not subsidized. However, it can prevent numerous health issues and potentially enhance quality of life. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4928530/

I received vaccinations for rabies (preventive - it's a very dangerous disease, with near-impossible survival chances once symptoms show), Hepatitis B (newer generation kids get it free under the national immunization program), and the annual influenza shot. There are more vaccines available, but I wasn't recommended for them and will take them as I get older.
I strongly believe that those who can afford it should participate in adult vaccination to help make the world a better place.

which month of year is appropriate is to get annual influenza shot, that is new version availability every year

 

[TinTinSnowy]

which month of year is appropriate is to get annual influenza shot, that is new version availability every year

It depends on where you live, what your doctor advises, and also the availability of the vaccine for newer strains.

I was reading a study where they recommended timing for the influenza shot based on your location. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703812/

"The experts acknowledged variations in the peak influenza season across various parts of the country. They recommended influenza vaccination from September to October for cities with temperate seasonality and April–May for cities with the peak monsoon season in July–September"

Disease control centre asks for use of WHO-recommended vaccine as flu cases rise

These flu viruses in India are similar to the ones found worldwide and are the same types that the World Health Organization recommends vaccines for, specifically the Southern Hemisphere 2024

www.livemint.com

"
Flu vaccines are typically divided into two types: for the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. The WHO recommends vaccine compositions biannually in February for the Northern Hemisphere and September for the Southern Hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere vaccine is typically available in February, while the Southern Hemisphere vaccine is provided from September.

"Northern Hemisphere vaccines are usually not available easily. In those circumstances it is advisable to use Southern Hemisphere vaccines," said a senior official from NCDC."

"

 

[blr_p]

I'm referring to Covishield and covaxin only!

Meaning those in the US have reason to be sceptical. You do not

I am not completely sure what this claim is based on, as chadox1 ncov-19 (Astrazeneca)'s self claimed efficacy (essentially estimate of risk-reward balance) was much lower than pfizer and moderna's at stage 3 trials stage. Yet, there can be a reasonable hypothesis that unknown risks could be lower, as MRNA vaccines (moderna, phizer) are a new technology and can potentially have higher unknown risks.

However, we now know based on some data and research that known risks across vaccines are already worse than what was estimated at the trial stage. We have no such analysis on COVAXIN, given the "exemplary data transparency" by our government (although risks could be lower, as it was based on the most time-tested vaccine design approach (inactivated viral vector).

That's what I assumed he meant. You don't have anything to worry about non MRNA vaccines like Covishield or covaxin.

Back to the recent report on study of risks, even this news coverage is sugar coated with arguments that risk of vaccine is less than risk of COVID. Yet, nobody can scientifically claim that long term risks would not turn out to be higher than what trials estimated. This is because trials were not even designed to look for long term risks.

Global study links COVID-19 vaccines with heart, brain disorders

The COVID-19 vaccines that emerged as a beacon of hope in the fight against the deadly virus during the pandemic are back in the news again following a new study that has linked the shots to rare brain, heart and blood disorders.

www.livemint.com

That applies more with MRNA I would think as inactivated viral vector is better known

 

[nRiTeCh]

@nRiTeCh
I turned up +ve after 5th day of 1st PFizer mRNA vaccination.
I took PFizer mRNA Covid19 vaccine second dose just ~5 days after Covid19 recovery. They said it was recommended to take vaccination sooner, if infection was mild or lower form.
On 3rd doze, when nurse heard I took second vaccination quickly after infection, she nodded in despair.
I was a vaccine enthusiast (there were jokes in media about vaccine reluctant people then, I'm sorry and now feel shameful that I fell for it), spent time and excess money just to get PFizer mRNA Covid19 vaccine the earliest possible. I got initial doze much much before many people were able to and was proud of it !
Was very very tired after all 3 vaccinations, though didn't get chronic conditions I needed assistance from others, I will never risk another mRNA Covid19 vaccine again, whole episode is a sad eye opener episode for me, giving trust issues now.

In our case, doctors kept pressing that the so-called side-effects are not due to the vaccination but some other hard to believe factors. They blamed existing allergies, food, some other medications and what not shit they can think off!
Well, if a vaccine causes allergies, then why even risk it without proper studies on both sides? Why there have been no concrete studies on vaccination aftereffects no matter even if only 2% of the global population has suffered? Are the lives of these 2% cheap or free to turn a deaf ear and blind eyes?
Everyone ran after vaccination and behind govt. hypnotization believing in the myth that vaccination is some 100% protection against corona.

IT WAS A CLEAR SCAM!

 

[blr_p]

I was a vaccine enthusiast (there were jokes in media about vaccine reluctant people then, I'm sorry and now feel shameful that I fell for it), spent time and excess money just to get PFizer mRNA Covid19 vaccine the earliest possible. I got initial doze much much before many people were able to and was proud of it !
Was very very tired after all 3 vaccinations, though didn't get chronic conditions I needed assistance from others, I will never risk another mRNA Covid19 vaccine again, whole episode is a sad eye opener episode for me, giving trust issues now.

The question is why did you go with MRNA?

There is the showoff factor but I think it was fear that motivated you. And there was a LOT of fear mongering going on.

India makes 70% of the world's vaccines. The Brits refer to their Astra Zeneca vaccine as Indian whereas we call it Oxford

In our case, doctors keep pressing that the so-called side-effects are not due to the vaccination but some other hard to believe factors. They blamed existing allergies, food, some other medications and what not shit they can think off!

Hard to believe depends on your knowledge. Why would you doubt the doctors?

Well, if a vaccine causes allergies, then why even risk it without proper studies on both sides?

Because we did not have eight years luxury to wait. In fact this was the dominant narrative soon after lock down began. A vaccine would takes years and years they said. One woman called Gagandeep gave me hope. She's knows a thing or two and she was right. The vaccines came out sooner than expected.

Why there have been no concrete studies on vaccination aftereffects no matter even if only 2% of the global population has suffered? Are the lives of these 2% cheap or free to turn a deaf ear and blind eyes?

To save 98%? Yes

Everyone ran after vaccination and behind govt. hypnotization believing in the myth that vaccination is some 100% protection against corona.

IT WAS A CLEAR SCAM!

How do you explain the less rate of infections these days then? Worldwide. How many people do you see wearing masks now

In India fortunately there was very little confusion on this topic. The govt let the pros run the show and the result is instead of over 20 million dead as models were predicting we ended up with a small fraction of that.

But what were people saying at the outset? Oh India does not have a health system. There will be many deaths. HAH!

I was safer living in India than London or New York