A Revealing Vaccine Adverse Event(s) Story
The Vaccine Wars Part XXIII
"We have forty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse." -Rudyard Kipling
Yesterday, a friend of mine posted this chat between herself and a friend of hers onto social media. The post-vaccination hospitalization for clotting took place in Europe. My friend responded in that exchange with an observation of another connection with post-vaccination heart problems. Eventually, we find out that the hospitalization for clotting took place soon after a booster injection.
I'm tired of reading about these stories, but this one takes a turn worth understanding. Posted with permission.
As most anyone who doesn't have their eyes shut tightly has experienced, these conversations are sadly common. But it is the way discourse takes place that is further revealing. Note the first blue text (my friend):
I spoke yesterday to a good friend with heart issues post-vaxx.
One of the responses on this particular social media post was from somebody who often chimes in to debate this particular friend. I'm going to refer to this person as Angry Vaccine Partisan (AVP) for the remainder of this article.
The AVP wants to attack the observation of post-vaccination heart problems in the apparently mutual friend by stating that she went and got too many doses. He continues his press as such:
I would appreciate AVP commenting on…well, just reading my whole substack, I guess. Really, if you're looking for sloppy, starting with the investigation into the SARS-CoV-2 origins story, the sham trials declaring HCQ dangerous, and the bizarre uncritical acceptance of the Pfizer trial report (the typesetting was nice, but…) seems fair, right?
For the sake of science, let's go ahead and take that additional information about extra-dosing (which both participants seemed to agree about after I asked) by the friend with heart issues at face value and consider the various implications (or just ask appropriate questions), just as AVP suggests:
While the government agencies publishing data act as if they have good information on the numbers of doses received per individual, this is an indication that people can game that system without observation. This should give everyone depending on such statistics for accuracy pause.
The unknown number of people with unknown dose intake muddies all observations for the largest medical experiment in human history.
If the "toxic dose curve" puts people into a danger zone for heart issues at less than twice the typical dosage, that suggests that there is at best a narrower-than-usual "goldilocks zone" of safety.
If there is a goldilocks zone for dosage, what is the limiting reagent? We were told the mRNA necessarily breaks down quickly (it doesn't), and that the LNPs something something [stop asking questions, anti-vaxxer], but perhaps the adjuvants are reaching up a "lethal/toxic dose curve" (so we jab kids with a whole bunch at once, usually?).
These quasi-vaccine doses are not being varied at all for adults, so far as I understand it. Does this mean that a person who weighs less may already be in danger of moving into the toxic zone at ordinary dose levels? Doesn't that seem like a question worth answering before coercing millions or billions of people into a medical experiment?
Vaccine doses were lowered for children, which seems like recognition that dosage matters in some way, and vaccine formulation was changed over to a tris buffer for mRNA vaccines (which was said to reduce risk of heart inflammation), as I understand it. In totality, AVP's point seems to feed the suggestion that these quasi-vaccines risk heart damage.
Regarding #2: I have had numerous people tell me that they have fake vaccine cards, or inquire about how to get one. That cannot be particularly uncommon. This muddies a lot of the statistical waters, and everyone in a position of "authority" must surely know this, right?
Dialogue is Good for Science
While I don't think AVP gets what they want out of this conversation, I think that the engagement is in fact what is needed during all this pandemonium, which is…dialogue. By speaking up to attack his friend (my friend) about the way she presented the heart issue in the text exchange (which was then shared on social media), he asserts principles of science. By following those principles of science, we can see exactly where they lead. And I think that's the primary reason why dialogue has rarely taken place during the pandemic—and especially during the mass human quasi-vaccine trial.
But it would be nice to see the dialogue happen a little more politely.