Why are we treating possible adverse events more seriously than a proven one?
I can't believe that the vast majority of medical schools are still requiring incoming students to be COVID vaccinated/boosted...
As someone planning to enter medschool in 2024, this is greatly disheartening to me as I am a young, athletic male PROVEN to be at risk for myocarditis.. And, I have natural immunity from June Omicron.
It's a shame that my only opportunity to defer is for religious reasons, rather than providing PROVEN data showing this to be a considerable risk for people like me...
I’ve been listening to your podcasts for close to a year now and really appreciate your scholarly interpretation of data and ability to communicate the information to a wide range of people. While current studies do clearly show that myocarditis following mRNA Covid vaccines is much more common in young men, there is also an increased incidence in young, athletic women. My niece’s sister-in-law, a collegiate basketball player, suffered from myocarditis shortly after receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine as did my twenty-eight year old nephew. These cases hit very close to home for me. I really appreciate you drawing attention to the issue of post vaccine myocarditis. Please continue to fight the good fight, but also
acknowledge that young women can also be at risk for myocarditis with mRNA vaccines.
Some real conclusions about this could be obstained in a study done by you and Logan in just a few weeks? Sounds like low-lying fruit, VP!
I appreciate this post VP. I wonder if soon you will stop ONLY mentioning the adverse event that has a safety signal...do you think there may be many others that go ignored (because not reported as such?) Also I wonder what you think about MDs like Dr. Marik who feels the Covid vaccines are unsafe.... this is an important video to watch https://rumble.com/v1lg05d-paul-marik-speaks-about-the-silencing-doctors-who-want-to-speak-out-about-t.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Federal court rules that the CDC has four days to release its V-Safe data.
I can't see it now, but @eekymom is kinda upset that you used her picture for this Substack story. She Tweeted about it, but you might not have seen it because her Tweets are protected. You might want to reach out to her.
I have three sons 10,13,16, my husband is 42. We held off on vaccinating them. My husband nearly lost his job and all the retirement he has worked so hard for at the fire department, my sons were kicked off their football teams. I do not regret choosing to be cautious. All my family are in or near the risk group. We have been vilified by our large parts of our community. If find this to be a very strange predicament. Thanks for being an advocate for us.
Thanks again VP for trying to remind us of wisdom and facts. Unfortunately your article has brought out a lot of crazies who KNOW that vaccines cause cancer and that vitamin D cures everything. And of course, the ever present pharma conspiracy to kill us all and make money as we die from their products...
Thank you for your observations. I agree with all your points. The Media has a lot to answer for. Being a believer in Karma, their day of atonement will come and governments will pay dearly.
I was advised not to have the second vaccine due to having had a heart attack. But I had to have it and the booster or else I could not work. And I am grateful that I have not had an adverse reaction.
My thoughts go out to those people who are suffering.
The Novavax randomized controlled clinical trial had almost twice the incidence rate of neoplasms/tumors in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group. Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2116185/suppl_file/nejmoa2116185_appendix.pdf - see page 48, Table S14
NOBODY is a winner when clinical trial results turn out to be ugly like that, but the clinical results are what they are- "the experts" cannot make ugly clinical trial results disappear just by dismissing them. Of course, they will often try to obfuscate ugly results with phrases like "not statistically significant", but that essentially means that there is only about 80% confidence of an increased risk rather than 95% confidence. Does that seem comforting enough? Another common cop-out is "this lacks biological plausibility", but many concerns have been raised about the potential carcinogenicity of the spike protein long before these particular results were out and long before people have been sounding the alarm about worrisome trends in cancer incidence and progression following the vaccine rollout. Sure, even with a nearly-doubled incidence, the absolute risk of neoplasms in the Novavax trial is still quite low, but that is only during the study period of just a few months. And then we must ask what the absolute risk of COVID death was in the placebo group of the trial- it was just over 1 in 10,000. Very importantly, that ~1/10000 was LONG BEFORE extremely effective treatments like Paxlovid became widely available. Especially with the availability of Paxlovid, an HONEST risk-benefit assessment of vaccination for ANY segment of the population needs to be done using UNBIASED data.
What will be the impact on the rate of myocarditis from covid when comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated of:
1) testing for breakthrough infections based on a max of 34 PCR cycles v. performing 42 PCR cycles for community testing and
2) having only two categories--the fully vaccinated and the unvaccinated, where the unvaccinated category includes those who were actually injected with covid vaccines, but had not received the vaccine-specific number of doses or had received them, but were in the two week waiting period post injection before they were considered "fully-vaccinated."
What would the false negative and false positive rates be for 34 cycles v. 42 cycles?
What is the impact on analyzing vaccine safety when there are only two categories of vaccination status? Could people be more susceptible to covid during the two weeks after injection with a covid vaccine, so wouldn't covid deaths occurring during the two weeks post-injection be ascribed to the
unvaccinated when they really ought to be ascribed to the injected?
In order to analyze vaccine safety, shouldn't statistics on any events, including covid cases, be kept for the injected, by vaccination status, including separate statuses for 1-dose and waiting periods for each dose? How else will we know if injection makes people _more_ susceptible to covid and complications from vaccines?
The two issues are being conflated, when they are separate:
1) Myocarditis has an acute trigger therefore, it will be seen in greater numbers and very quickly after a vaccine roll-out..
2) Cancers start quite some time before they are recognised... therefore there are some questions to be asked:
a) Do covid vaccines downregulate genes such as p 53 and braca genes?
b) If the medical literature hints that the infection can provoke cancer with genetic susceptibilities, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213508/ why would a vaccine, which produces spike for a much longer time, than the infection does, not do the same thing?
c) Given that there is a time lag between a the start of and clear appearance of cancer, shouldn't we perhaps be cautious about arguing away a case just because the doctor was famous?
We are only two years down the line from the vaccine roll-out. IF the vaccines do downregulate cancer genes, then this might represent the first rippling wave before the full buildup.
d) If the spike protein impairs DNA repair, what might the consequences of that be for the vaccinated in terms of the body trying to deal with previous cancer?
Such a great analysis. If I were king, you'd be in charge of the CDC and then you'd decide who goes the the FDA and the NIH. If you didn't want to do that I'd send my goons and they'd make you. Also, remind me not to ever piss you off... also, maybe sending the goons might do that... it' my dream, it will all work out.
In all seriousness, I have the upmost respect for your intellect and courage. You've forced me outside of my bubble and challenged me. Your focus on good research designs has raised my level of awareness. Finally, I can't thank you enough for being such an effective communicator. You, much like Andrew Huberman, don't talk down to me but you still make the material accessible for those of us without the specific knowledge you posses. Thank you and be well.
My uncle 78, diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma with liver mets, and renal cell carcinoma. Previously healthy, got vaccinated and boosted. Months later diagnosed with these cancers and passed away 10 days ago just after 3 months of diagnosis.
Not proven, I understand. But hard to dismiss as a possibility.
The reason there are other side effects of the covid vaccines that haven’t been established yet is because doctors, the FDA, and the NIH don’t want to acknowledge it. My health was turned upside down after my first dose of Pfizer. I went from an incredibly healthy and fit 38 year old mom of 3, to bedridden for months and months, and then to someone who had to take immune suppressing meds just to “bring my immune system back down.” I still suffer from daily neurological issues. And yes, every other thing was ruled out. The FDA was absolutely no help and told me they couldn’t offer treatment advice but they were “looking into it.” And yet, all they do is deny deny deny that these vaccines are hurting people. I’ve lost any faith I had in the CDC, FDA, or NIH. They will never earn my trust back.