Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?

Source: The Wall Street Journal (behind paywall).

WSJ goes out on a limb.

One remarkable aspect of the Covid-19 pandemic has been how often unpopular scientific ideas, from the lab-leak theory to the efficacy of masks, were initially dismissed, even ridiculed, only to resurface later in mainstream thinking. Differences of opinion have sometimes been rooted in disagreement over the underlying science. But the more common motivation has been political.

Another reversal in thinking may be imminent. Some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated. But the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking—for now.

The “outskirts” of scientific thinking here refers to two recent discoveries. The first is that Covid-19’s spike protein is a toxin in its own right. (This is important because the mRNA Covid vaccines cause the human body to produce spike protein). The second is that the Covid mRNA vaccine travels throughout the human body, noticeably concentrating in ovaries and bone marrow (this was unexpected when the EUA for the vaccines was given).

There is, at present, no telling what these two observations might mean for public health policy.

My view: Much that we know about Covid-19 and Covid vaccines has been a hoax.

18 thoughts on “Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?

  1. Funny, when Trump was the President you people were whining that there was no good reason to delay the rapid dissemination Covid vaccine.

    Now that Biden is President you are spreading the word that it is too early to approve these vaccines – too risky. And that after hundreds of millions of vaccinations with positive results and negligible side effects.

    By the way, there was never any scientific dispute about the efficacy of mask wearing as WSJ alleges. Dr. Fauci’s frequently misrepresented comments were made when there was a need to allocate available masks to front line health workers. FWIIW, I personally get very suspicious of the intellectual honesty of a writer when they trot out this kind of “alternative fact.”

    Liked by 4 people

    1. RE: “Now that Biden is President you are spreading the word that it is too early to approve these vaccines – too risky.”

      That’s your characterization, not mine.

      It was to be expected that new information about Covid vaccine efficacy and safety would emerge once mass vaccination began. Now that the new information is emerging, it deserves discussion.

      RE: “By the way, there was never any scientific dispute about the efficacy of mask wearing as WSJ alleges.”

      Actually, there was. I wrote about it here in the forum early in the pandemic. There was no dispute about the use of masks in clinical settings, but evidence for efficacy of mask use by the general population was spotty at best.

      Like

      1. “but evidence for efficacy of mask use by the general population was spotty at best.”

        Uh, baloney. In fact, you people defending Trump’s poor performance versus countries like Korea and Japan used their tradition of mask-wearing as the explanation.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “You are a bigot.”

            You people always say that too while you merrily worship at the feet of the former Birther-in-chief and gobble up nonsense about Critical Race Theory.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. It is an error to compare the risks of the vaccine to some non-existent, Covid free state. Covid will not be irradicated, sooner or later, everyone will be exposed.

    So, the proper evaluation is between being vaccinated before being infected or being infected without the head start of being vaccinated.

    I had not read of the mRNA vaccines spreading around the body, but even if so, so does the SARS-COV-2 virus. The virus replicates by taking over cells to make copies, including the spike protein. Even in a mild case, the virus load produces more spike protein than the vaccine, and directly affects cells throughout the body.

    In short, everything people are worried the nRNA vaccines MIGHT do, the virus does a hundreds of times worse.

    So, unless you are prepared to spend the rest of your life isolated in a shelter in Antartica, your choice is get COVID with a prepared immune system, or without.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “I had not read of the mRNA vaccines spreading around the body…”

      This came up in the video I posted on Sunday. Apparently, Pfizer compiled some bio-distribution data for its vaccine in response to a Japanese government requirement. The report was obtained via a FOIA request:

      Click to access 0vwcmj.pdf

      The data in the report was used to produce this graphic, in which lipid concentrations serve as a proxy for vaccine mRNA:

      Like

      1. Maybe, but I am not convinced. You have to take care with proxies(the climate mess should make that clear)

        The mRNA vaccines are a bit of messenger RNA in a glob of lipid. When the globs contact a muscle cell, they stick and that opens the cell membrane allowing the mRNA to enter. But the lipid does not enter, and can continue to circulate. So, the lipids that carried the mRNA might be detected elsewhere, but they may by then be empty.

        Without some way to determine if the lipid still carries the mRNA in other locations, I’m not sure if the proxy is valid.

        In any case, you still have to compare the vaccine to the virus, not to a pristine state.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “In any case, you still have to compare the vaccine to the virus, not to a pristine state.”

          Agreed.

          Like

    2. Thank you Doc, but then that’s your job.

      Myocarditis. It appeared in 228 cases of those under 30 receiving the mRNA vaccines, over 7,000,000 people and in 5% of Covid infections.

      Do the math.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The risk/benefit calculation is different for different demographic groups. Would you give a vaccine to a cohort that faces zero risk of Covid if you knew the vaccine itself would harm a non-zero number of that cohort?

        Like

          1. That depends how you define “zero risk,” but the same question can be asked differently: If you knew 1 in a hundred people of a certain age would be harmed by a disease, but 2 in a hundred would be harmed by the vaccine, would you vaccinate all people in that age group?

            Like

          2. Weren’t you in a bot of a tizzy when J7J’s vaccines was temporarily suspended because of blood clots in younger women?

            So its OK if women have risks, but when men do, you find a reason to get all tizzied up. I would say you were being mysoginistic, but that would be too easy.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s