Covid Vaccines Are Brilliant and Safe

The Covid vaccines are incredibly safe. With 11,934,316,168 doses administered and tens of millions of lives saved we know a lot about them. They have been transformational, allowing us to move from mass house arrest to normal living. And when we do catch the disease now it is much milder, due partially to long term T cell immunity conferred by the vaccine.

Vaccines, by their very nature, cause a lot of side effects. Temporary sore arms and sore chests. Take these away and the number of Covid vaccine adverse events is very small indeed. And most of the remainder are caused by a mental condition caused nocebo effect. Which means that the number of real significant events is incredibly small.

Every pharmaceutical causes adverse events. Aspirin and Paracetamol regularly kill people who don’t want to die. The female contraceptive pill causes blood clots. If you read up about all the drugs in your house you would be shocked. So it is about balancing the good done against the potential for harm. A moral dilemma the pharmaceutical companies have faced since their very inception. And with the Covid vaccines the balance is immensely on the side of the good done.

Just by way of illustration, try and guess which common drug this is:

Hepatic
Common (1% to 10%): Increased aspartate aminotransferase

Rare (less than 0.1%): Increased hepatic transaminases

Frequency not reported: Liver failure[Ref]

Gastrointestinal
Very common (10% or more): Nausea (up to 34%), Vomiting (up to 15%)

Common (1% to 10%): Abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, dyspepsia, enlarged abdomen

Frequency not reported: Dry mouth[Ref]

Hypersensitivity
Postmarketing reports: Anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions[Ref]

Hematologic
Common (1% to 10%): Anemia, postoperative hemorrhage

Very rare (less than 0.01%): Thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, neutropenia[Ref]

Dermatologic
Common (1% to 10%): Rash, pruritus

Rare (less than 0.1%): Serious skin reactions such as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis

Very rare (less than 0.01%): Pemphigoid reaction, pustular rash, Lyell syndrome[Ref]

Respiratory
Common (1% to 10%): Dyspnea, abnormal breath sounds, pulmonary edema, hypoxia, pleural effusion, stridor, wheezing, coughing[Ref]

Cardiovascular
Common (1% to 10%): Peripheral edema, hypertension, hypotension, tachycardia, chest pain[Ref]

Metabolic
Common (1% to 10%): Hypokalemia, hyperglycemia[Ref]

Nervous system
Common (1% to 10%): Headache, dizziness

Frequency not reported: Dystonia

Musculoskeletal
Common (1% to 10%): Muscle spasms, trismus

Psychiatric
Common (1% to 10%): Insomnia, anxiety

Genitourinary
Common (1% to 10%): Oliguria

Local
Common (1% to 10%): Infusion site pain, injection site reactions

Ocular
Common (1% to 10%): Periorbital edema

Other
Common (1% to 10%): Pyrexia, fatigue

Rare (0.01% to 0.1%): Malaise

5 Comments


  1. 10 of millions? this is total Bullshit Bruce, the vast majority did not need this. Who funded the study? The drug companys themselves via Gavi? How about Mr Bill Gates?

    Reply

    1. Prove your points.
      You can’t because they are lies.
      I provide links to the science.

      Reply

  2. You’re the one making false claims!
    You even source the Guardian FFS

    Reply

  3. In August of 2021 the FDA noted that Pfizer had acknowledged the written comments of the FDA and agreed to perform Study C4591022 and entitled it “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Exposure during Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.” (https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download). This is important because FDA Study C4591022 is a type of study that the FDA has defined. The study design document is here:

    Design And Analysis Of Shedding Studies For Virus Or Bacteria Based Gene Therapy And Oncolytic Products Guidance For Industry
    120KB ∙ PDF File
    Read now
    Here is an excerpt from the first paragraph of the document:
    The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)/Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies (OCTGT) is issuing this guidance to provide you, sponsors of virus or bacteria-based gene therapy products (VBGT products)1 and oncolytic viruses or bacteria (oncolytic products) with recommendations on how to conduct shedding studies during preclinical and clinical development. For purposes of this guidance, the term “shedding” means release of VBGT or oncolytic products from the patient through one or all of the following ways: excreta (feces); secreta (urine, saliva, nasopharyngeal fluids etc.); or through the skin (pustules, sores, wounds). Shedding is distinct from biodistribution because the latter describes how a product is spread within the patient’s body from the site of administration while the former describes how it is excreted or released from the patient’s body. Shedding raises the possibility of transmission of VBGT or oncolytic products from treated to untreated individuals (e.g., close contacts and health care professionals).
    Beyond the implicit admission that the jabs are gene therapies, it is difficult to imagine why Pfizer would agree to do a study on shedding if it cannot happen. With that in mind, I take you back to the question about hepatitis. The first question is how many of these kids are jabbed? The second question is, if hepatitis is an AESI and if the jab might shed could any of these kids be seeing side effects if they are in close contacts with people being jabbed?

    Reply

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.