Article in The Atlantic tries to downplay covid vaccine cancer risk, but what do they know? Probably, they are trying to get ahead of the narrative. Shameful.
I think we are at the stage where even if 100 percent of people dropped dead immediately on receiving the shots they would still claim that the risk/benefit in dropping dead was preferable to 'covid'
Great article! Paraphrase: I was a little sick, got a shot, got a little more sick. Then yeah I decided/was told I needed another shot and got even more sick. But it’s all good. Take your shot people!
Fine work. Would you be willing to say more about your reservations about Dr. Jane Ruby, beyond what you'e said here? Or is what you said here pretty much your case against her?
This matters. As you know, she has been the most important investigator so far with respect to the adverse-event which I believe may be the most dangerous one long-term, the Richard Hirschman clots.
I know of 4 cancer patients who died months after the mRNA jab. All 4 had their cancers travel through the brain cell barrier. I recently read that the mRNA does that. It also spikes the illness in your body and inflammation. I know 3 kids who now have myocarditis and 4 people just diagnosed with cancer, one of them was in remission. Years ago I read about md Anderson experimenting with mRNA in cancer drugs and found the mRNA spiked the cancer cells. So how is this covid vx any different? I’m tired of my doctor pushing this on me. At this point, I’ve refused it since it rolled out, nothing will change my mind on taking it or having my child take it. It’s a hard no!
I read the article myself last night (I have my own thoughts on it that I'll be posting shortly).
Bottom line: this is why the scientific bastardy I call Faucism is a serious problem. Facts, evidence, even established (and decidedly non-utlitarian) canons of medical ethics do not register with these ideologues.
Apparently the world has yet to learn its lesson about such madness.
To quote Sophocles, "whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad".
I haven't fully read the article on The Atlantic, but here's my response based on what I've read here.
1. I feel that when people are trying to consider infection-induced myocarditis vs. vaccine-induced myocarditis, they're making a slight miscalculation.
You see, with mRNA vaccination, this risk evaluation isn't an either-or proposition, but an and one.
By that, I mean that with mRNA vaccination, you're stacking 2 risk factors together: the risk of myocarditis from the infection, with (not or, but with) the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine.
So, when people are considering mRNA vaccination, the either-or, infection-or-vaccine argument is a slight miscalculation: it's really the risk of the infection alone, or the risk of the infection COMBINED with the risk of the vaccine.
2. You may have heard of the study done on Thai adolescents, titled Cardiovascular Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents.
It basically found that the rates of post-vaccine cardiovascular irregularities are far higher than what's been previously estimated.
If these numbers are consistent, and if other such studies are conducted (ones that focus on subclinical issues) then the notion that the infection has a higher rate will be heavily contested.
Here's a link to a pre-print version (of which there's now a peer-reviewed version)
For something like 26% of these, they were still taking medication 90 days after, which, in their case, disputes the notion that vaccine-induced myocarditis "clears" itself quickly.
4. I had to look at the Atlantic article to verify this, because I almost couldn't believe it: “I would say that 95 percent of the reactions were extremely friendly...”
Really?
I almost laughed out loud at that one.
An "extremely friendly" reaction?
Seriously?
When, in a vaccine context, has anyone used the words "friendly" and "reaction" in the same sentence?
Like...wow...just....wow.
I mean...what's a "friendly reaction"?
If people didn't experience anything unpleasant, they say, "I had no reactions, " and if they had an unpleasant experience, they say, "I had a reaction," but an "extremely friendly" one?
Maybe I'm putting too much effort into trying to understand some of these articles.
But otherwise, despite the efforts of The Atlantic to try to marginalize the significance of these cancers, it is good that the truth is spilling out.
As with myocarditis, they'll begin by saying "it's rare," and then, it'll basically become established that it's not so "rare."
My favorite part of Roxanne Khamsi's angsty reportage:
"In fact, when Michel first told me about his cancer and about the paper he’d written with his brother, I said that I couldn’t write about it. I was worried that some readers would misinterpret my article, and mistakenly see it as a reason not to get vaccinated."
Your final bullet points are all on point. I’m just a little hopeful that the word is getting out, slowly but surely, even if the entire endeavor is designed to propagandize and get ahead of the truth coming out. Maybe a few children are saved by the precautionary principle, now that this is becoming more recognized by collective public understanding. One can hope.
These alarming reports are fully in line with the anecdotal evidence being provided by highly qualified German pathologists as well as US-based colleagues such as Dr. Ryan Cole. The data they all cite was confirmed again by Dr. Long in her analyses of the stunning explosion of numerous types of cancer among young-age military recruits in the US (and likely elsewhere).
How does it protect the Boomers, or anyone, to vax young people? The vaccines increase spread. They knew from the beginning they didn’t stop infection. Average age of Covid death is 81, several years older than the oldest Boomer. The Pharma cartel must be enriched at all costs, that’s who gets “protection.”
Loved your analysis with this article . I liked the length of The Atlantic article and sometimes wonder who is taking the time to read things longer than a tweet ? Looking forward to watching the twisting narrative unfold as more people may in fact be questioning things- wow am I optimistic today with that thought .
I think we are at the stage where even if 100 percent of people dropped dead immediately on receiving the shots they would still claim that the risk/benefit in dropping dead was preferable to 'covid'
Great article! Paraphrase: I was a little sick, got a shot, got a little more sick. Then yeah I decided/was told I needed another shot and got even more sick. But it’s all good. Take your shot people!
Fine work. Would you be willing to say more about your reservations about Dr. Jane Ruby, beyond what you'e said here? Or is what you said here pretty much your case against her?
This matters. As you know, she has been the most important investigator so far with respect to the adverse-event which I believe may be the most dangerous one long-term, the Richard Hirschman clots.
I know of 4 cancer patients who died months after the mRNA jab. All 4 had their cancers travel through the brain cell barrier. I recently read that the mRNA does that. It also spikes the illness in your body and inflammation. I know 3 kids who now have myocarditis and 4 people just diagnosed with cancer, one of them was in remission. Years ago I read about md Anderson experimenting with mRNA in cancer drugs and found the mRNA spiked the cancer cells. So how is this covid vx any different? I’m tired of my doctor pushing this on me. At this point, I’ve refused it since it rolled out, nothing will change my mind on taking it or having my child take it. It’s a hard no!
Great piece, Further normalization, vaccine side effects are (in best Fauci voice) "rare but expected"
I read the article myself last night (I have my own thoughts on it that I'll be posting shortly).
Bottom line: this is why the scientific bastardy I call Faucism is a serious problem. Facts, evidence, even established (and decidedly non-utlitarian) canons of medical ethics do not register with these ideologues.
Apparently the world has yet to learn its lesson about such madness.
To quote Sophocles, "whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad".
Now we can see exactly how that looks.
Good analysis.
I haven't fully read the article on The Atlantic, but here's my response based on what I've read here.
1. I feel that when people are trying to consider infection-induced myocarditis vs. vaccine-induced myocarditis, they're making a slight miscalculation.
You see, with mRNA vaccination, this risk evaluation isn't an either-or proposition, but an and one.
By that, I mean that with mRNA vaccination, you're stacking 2 risk factors together: the risk of myocarditis from the infection, with (not or, but with) the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine.
So, when people are considering mRNA vaccination, the either-or, infection-or-vaccine argument is a slight miscalculation: it's really the risk of the infection alone, or the risk of the infection COMBINED with the risk of the vaccine.
2. You may have heard of the study done on Thai adolescents, titled Cardiovascular Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents.
It basically found that the rates of post-vaccine cardiovascular irregularities are far higher than what's been previously estimated.
If these numbers are consistent, and if other such studies are conducted (ones that focus on subclinical issues) then the notion that the infection has a higher rate will be heavily contested.
Here's a link to a pre-print version (of which there's now a peer-reviewed version)
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1
3. A few days ago, a study was released that served as a post-90-day surveillance of post-mRNA vaccination myocarditis sufferers.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00244-9/fulltext
For something like 26% of these, they were still taking medication 90 days after, which, in their case, disputes the notion that vaccine-induced myocarditis "clears" itself quickly.
4. I had to look at the Atlantic article to verify this, because I almost couldn't believe it: “I would say that 95 percent of the reactions were extremely friendly...”
Really?
I almost laughed out loud at that one.
An "extremely friendly" reaction?
Seriously?
When, in a vaccine context, has anyone used the words "friendly" and "reaction" in the same sentence?
Like...wow...just....wow.
I mean...what's a "friendly reaction"?
If people didn't experience anything unpleasant, they say, "I had no reactions, " and if they had an unpleasant experience, they say, "I had a reaction," but an "extremely friendly" one?
Maybe I'm putting too much effort into trying to understand some of these articles.
But otherwise, despite the efforts of The Atlantic to try to marginalize the significance of these cancers, it is good that the truth is spilling out.
As with myocarditis, they'll begin by saying "it's rare," and then, it'll basically become established that it's not so "rare."
"I had an extremely friendly reaction."
Said no person ever.
My favorite part of Roxanne Khamsi's angsty reportage:
"In fact, when Michel first told me about his cancer and about the paper he’d written with his brother, I said that I couldn’t write about it. I was worried that some readers would misinterpret my article, and mistakenly see it as a reason not to get vaccinated."
I'll just leave that out there.
Your final bullet points are all on point. I’m just a little hopeful that the word is getting out, slowly but surely, even if the entire endeavor is designed to propagandize and get ahead of the truth coming out. Maybe a few children are saved by the precautionary principle, now that this is becoming more recognized by collective public understanding. One can hope.
These alarming reports are fully in line with the anecdotal evidence being provided by highly qualified German pathologists as well as US-based colleagues such as Dr. Ryan Cole. The data they all cite was confirmed again by Dr. Long in her analyses of the stunning explosion of numerous types of cancer among young-age military recruits in the US (and likely elsewhere).
what's wrong with them? they don't care about children or young people. the Boomers must be protected, at all costs. that means ALL. COSTS.
How does it protect the Boomers, or anyone, to vax young people? The vaccines increase spread. They knew from the beginning they didn’t stop infection. Average age of Covid death is 81, several years older than the oldest Boomer. The Pharma cartel must be enriched at all costs, that’s who gets “protection.”
The covid poison injections protect no one, including the elderly. You've bought the propaganda if you believe they do.
hahahahhahahquhquqhqyqhahhahahahahhahqhqhqhahahhhahahahaha.... cough cough... hahahahhaahahahqhqh. no sympathy
Excellent info thank you
This was an excellent analysis. I stumbled across the article(recommended by Apple.) It drove me bonkers. The gaslighting is incredible.
I saw the headline a few days ago and refused to waste my time reading it. I knew it'd be exactly as Stephanie describes it.
Loved your analysis with this article . I liked the length of The Atlantic article and sometimes wonder who is taking the time to read things longer than a tweet ? Looking forward to watching the twisting narrative unfold as more people may in fact be questioning things- wow am I optimistic today with that thought .