I’ve long been gunshy about inviting discussion on the health impact of vaccines. It’s become such a polarizing issue—you’re either all in on vaccines as the be-all and end-all of public health, including for getting past Covid, or you are anti-vax, riding on every pronouncement by Robert Kennedy Jr. and scouring the Internet for videos of teenagers supposedly dropping dead from Covid shots.
My own sense has long been that the reality lies somewhere in between—that vaccines overall are protective for the vast majority of people, but that there are exceptions that assert themselves in the form of serious reactions to vaccination—not just Covid, but other vaccines as well.
Moreover, it seems to be very difficult for many people to accept the reality that, when it comes to Covid, there’s just been a lot that scientists, doctors, and public health officials don’t fully understand because it emerged so suddenly as a new disease. As a Harvard researcher I know who spends considerable time on the Covid vaccines told me recently, “The Covid virus is incredibly complex,” especially as it continually mutates.
Which brings me to a few studies concerning vaccinations that have been brought to my attention recently. I found them intriguing, even compelling, because they seemed well reasoned and calm—in other words, they didn’t take an all-or-none approach as they begin to shed light on the risks and benefits of vaccination.
The first study, by a pediatrician of his practice, compared his billings for various illnesses for vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and concluded: “The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.”
Now, what the author didn’t say was whether the data might have been skewed because parents of unvaccinated children may be more reluctant to bring their children into the doctor’s office for a possible strep throat or ear infection because they want to avoid antibiotics that physicians tend to prescribe for childhood infections. But the study seems to give ammunition to both sides—pro vaxxers can point to the indications that vaccinated kids in the practice aren’t showing alarming signs of autism or learning disabilities, and anti-vaxxers can take comfort that their kids may actually be healthier than vaccinated children overall.
Intriguing as the study might have been, it wound up stirring controversy—by the end of last year, it had been retracted from the journal in which it was published because “concerns were brought to the attention of the editorial office regarding the validity of the conclusions….”
The second study, published in Nature, examined “the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis” of people receiving Covid vaccines in France., It found substantial risk “for myocarditis following mRNA-1273 vaccination in persons aged 18 to 24 years,” along with lower risk but still a “substantial burden” for other age groups.
The study concluded that it “provides strong evidence of an increased risk of myocarditis and of pericarditis in the week following vaccination against Covid-19 with mRNA vaccines in both males and females, in particular after the second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Future studies based on an extended period of observation will allow to investigate the risk related to the booster dose of the vaccines and monitoring the long-term consequences of these post vaccination acute inflammations.” In other words, additional study is required to assess whether possibly different dosages might get the desired immunity responses, without the myocarditis risk.
And there’s a third study summarized in The Wall Street Journal, which shows the latest covid booster reduces the severity of the disease for those who get it. “In a 1,323-person study published this month in the medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, subjects who received a booster had the least severe Covid-19 symptoms and they abated more quickly over time, compared with both people who only received an initial series or were unvaccinated.”
Is it possible for people to accept the possibility that vaccination results might be nuanced, rather than all-or-none for one side or the other? Is it possible that for large and important segments of the population, they provide important protection from serious highly communicable disease, such as in a pandemic, but that a notable minority are at risk for bad reactions? I doubt it. We live in such a polarized cultural environment where nearly all of life has become political fodder. And the situation has been worsened with the introduction of vaccine mandates in places like California.
I can’t wait for the time in the hopefully not-too-distant future where people on all sides of this matter will be able to sit peacefully with each other, and arrive at realistic policy guidelines.
We can only “sit peacefully together “ if we’re all allowed access to the seating rather than being forced to stay home and be segregated and treated as second class citizens.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has witnessed for many years the FDA and CDC lies and obfuscation about raw milk would believe anything that those agencies had to say about Covid and/or mRNA vaccines.
What David is saying is not based upon CDC and FDA statments, but global health organizations and scientists world-wide. Indeed, every epidemiologist knows that vaccines are not an ultimate solution, but a tool to contain a disease that is spreading too rapidly to otherwise control. When I develop control programmes for diseases for farms, then vaccines may or may not be a tool in a large arsenal of measures to combat the disease. Rapidly mutating viruses is nothing new, we have been fighting this challenge since the development of vaccines started. That is where the RNA vaccines may provide a huge advantage, as they can be modified quickly. I am a veterinary epidemiologist working on bovine coronavirus, thus, I know I have a far easier task working with animals than with humans, and every farmer can quickly see the value in preventing disease, by boosting immunity, whether naturally through targeted exposure to pathogens in growing animals or through vaccines. Considering the new evidence that even mild covid-19 disease causes chronic brain disturbances, I will without hesitation keep taking the vaccines. My brain is very valuable to me ;).
It does not matter what one believes with respect to these invasive injections known as “vaccinations”. Of utmost importance is remembering that each human being is unique and that attempting to lump them, medically and/or politically into one box based on the premise of the so claimed consistent, net benefit results is foolhardy and arrogant to say the least. Where there is risk, and indeed there are substantial short-term and long-term risks when bypassing the body’s natural censoring mechanisms via these toxic vaccine injections, then there should be choice… A fact that rabid self-righteous vax proponents clearly lose sight of in their endeavor to defend their sacrosanct vaccines and forcefully insist that every man woman and child be injected. A religious zeal if you will that has become intertwined with politics… hence the major reason for the impasse.
Thank you, Mr. Conrad. Well stated!
Every type of shot carries risks. I had a tetanus shot in my shoulder and had to go into physical therapy and get a series of steroid shots to loosen the shoulder joint up, (but it will never be quite the same again).
Yes, I am very happy that three generations of American children have been free of polio and it was vaccinations which enabled this, but David is right, we have to evaluate vaccinations in a logical proof related way, not a political/zealot type way.
Unfortunately the WSJ “summary” is behind a paywall, so it’s not possible for us peons to evaluate the underlying study it’s based on. I’m going out on a limb, however, to guess that it is subject to the same biases mentioned in the first study mentioned, the retracted article by pediatrician Paul Thomas on his observations of children’s health in his practice.
One thing it definitely will not do is to show hard evidence that the vaccine itself is the sole, or main reason that “subjects who received a booster had the least severe Covid-19 symptoms and they abated more quickly over time, compared with both people who only received an initial series or were unvaccinated.” What would be the method necessary to evaluate such a cause-effect relationship between any vaccination and the severity of the disease it’s targeted against?
To my knowledge, such a study has never been done. Instead, we have statistical analysis which can only show a correlation between two events or outcomes; it can never show a cause-effect relationship. Furthermore, statistics can be very easily manipulated, by picking and choosing what data to include and what to exclude. A “1,323-person study,” out of all the hundreds of millions of persons who have had the covid vaccines and boosters, is a pitifully weak sample.
The way the Amish handled COVID.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DgWYdukZU&t=2s
GiveSendGo fund for Amos Miller raised $160,000 > the website headline, being
“Help Amos Miller Save Our Traditional Foods”
I say : do whatever makes you feel good. But – cynic that I am … I warn that such funds will only be thrown on the Bonfire of Vanities. A hundred and sixty grand is just coffee money, in that racket.
The webmistress sez “you are what you eat and this is an undeniable fact”. Correct. Another True-ism, being : your god is the one you to whom you pay obeisance. The ‘higher power’ of the conglomerate doing business as Amish Amos © is the one whose trademark is displayed on the back of the Federal Reserve one dollar note.
Mr Miller was doing OK, but he lost the plot when he got too big for his britches … thinking he could get away with participating in the world of commerce for profit derived in the currency predicated in usury, then retreat in to the religious Compound and hide out from the wicked world so disdained by Amish Culture
Yeah, tough love can be brutal. It’s time to say : “Where is your Big God now, Mr Miller? How come all your kinvolk, around the world are not coming alongside you? Pretty pathetic witness > turning to the tender mercies of “The English” whom you otherwise so disdain !?
I’ve said it before, and I expect I’ll be saying it again –- Jesus Christ commanded his followers “settle with thine Adversary in the way, lest you be drawn before the Magistrate and made to pay the utmost farthing”
………… from the website ……….
https://www.givesendgo.com/G3NZH
link to interview with Amos Miller’s new lawyer Robert Barnes
on rumble
https://rumble.com/v1lh4cz-september-25-2022.html
disregard previous segment re Alex Jones trial
start at 49 minutes
From coast to coast, Canadians have wrinkled their noses at plant-based meat substitutes. Their rejection of fake meat appears to have a variety of motivations, from the “bleh” taste and often rubbery texture to the typically high prices to – perhaps the biggest objection of all – a baffling list of ingredients that reveal meat substitutes to be highly processed and decidedly unnatural food.
the Fake Meat Fiasco : so much for plant-based protein alternatives
by Doug Firby
Read more at https://c2cjournal.ca/…/the-fake-meat-fiasco-so-much…/
Safe and Effective??? Giving the vaccine injured a voice…
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/11/19/a-second-opinion.aspx?v=1668193890
the image of food, versus the real thing
The FDA has given a green light to laboratory-grown chicken cell lines that were developed by a medical doctor.
Reading the headlines and press releases on this action by the FDA, one is led to believe that the FDA has approved this lab-grown “chicken.” But the FDA doesn’t approve foods. They monitor food safety and labeling, but they do not approve foods. They only approve drugs. So what does this actually mean? In terms of how safe this product is, it means NOTHING. This was a “voluntary,” “pre-market consultation” paid for by the company planning to market this product, so that they could use the FDA logo with their product giving the illusion that the FDA has actually approved this product, when in fact they have not.
Do we really need a lab-cultured product called “chicken” produced by a medical doctor who has no training in agriculture or nutrition? Who will conduct the studies on how this lab-grown “chicken” will affect human health once people start consuming it? You will, along with the rest of the public who decides to start eating it. The American consumer will become the lab rats in what will basically become the Phase III trials to see how their health will be affected after consuming this product.
And who are the investors that are bringing this product to market? Investors include top meat producer Tyson, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Elon Musks’ brother Kimbal Musk. Now there’s a bunch of names we can certainly trust to look out for our health!
“The decisions regarding treatment are between the physician and their patient.” – my father the anesthesiologist. No one else is within that doctor/patient circle.
Why everyone’s business is everyone’s business is a “Karen” phenomenon [if you’ll pardon the urban slang].
The ground rules that reveal one’s capabilities remain: those who speak of others are small minded. Greater minds discuss ideas.
TRUTH IS THE DAUGHTER OF TIME
as America de-compresses from the lockdown, what becomes undeniable, is = this was the greatest medical mal-practice, ever
https://needtoknow.news/2023/01/new-study-indicates-more-than-217000-americans-were-killed-by-covid-vaccines-in-2021/
Indeed, “truth is the daughter of time” even though the truth was clearly evident prior to this so-called pandemic…
“The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-work.html
In answer to the above question… Likely not for some, since truth and common sense are faithfully ignored by those that have acquired an ingrained bad habit founded on hierarchical misinformation.
an article in Country Life magazine in England. written by Tom Parker Bowles = the son of Queen Camilla. So the Royals are very much on-side with REAL MILK
……………….
You never forget your first sip. Of raw milk that is, fresh from the cow, simply filtered, cooled and bottled.
No pasteurisation, homogenisation or standardisation, meaning it still contains the full complement of vitamins, minerals and natural digestive enzymes as well as providing the most lusciously creamy mouthful of pure dairy delight; rich, sweet and voluptuously full bodied.
For someone who was ambivalent about milk, the raw stuff was a revelation. And that revelation came courtesy of Stephen Hook, a fourth-generation Sussex dairy farmer, way back in 2011 at Selfridges, in London.
A manager of the store’s food hall had tried his raw milk at the Abergavenny Food Festival, fallen in love and, after a few meetings sorting out the legalities (the law stated that raw milk could ‘only be sold from the farm premises’), it agreed that Mr Hook could rent some floor space in Selfridges’ food hall, install his own raw-milk vending machine and sell direct to his customers.
And it was from that machine, after plugging my coin into the slot and filling up my own glass bottle, I took my first taste. The punters couldn’t get enough. ‘For 50 years, the pasteurising industry had been bedevilling the image of raw milk as a dangerous food,’ explains Mr Hook.
For someone who was ambivalent about milk, the raw stuff was a revelation
For someone who was ambivalent about milk, the raw stuff was a revelation
And it was from that machine, after plugging my coin into the slot and filling up my own glass bottle, I took my first taste. The punters couldn’t get enough
And it was from that machine, after plugging my coin into the slot and filling up my own glass bottle, I took my first taste. The punters couldn’t get enough
But then, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) demanded that the machine was removed from Selfridges because it was illegal. It wasn’t – as by renting the space, Mr Hook was selling from his premises.
Anyway, to cut an epic story short, thanks to circumstances beyond Mr Hook’s control (and involving an entirely unrelated issue), he withdrew the machine in March 2012, although Selfridges agreed the venture had been a great success and no laws had been broken.
However, the prejudice against raw milk goes back many years, a mixture of scare stories, misinformation and, once upon a time, some very legitimate fears, too.
‘The idea that raw milk is unsafe and poisonous is ingrained in the British psyche,’ says Jon Cook, who runs Dora’s Dairy in Wiltshire with his wife Sarah. ‘But there was a good reason for pasteurisation.
‘During the Industrial Revolution, when dairies moved into towns, the cows were fed brewery and bakery waste, not grass. And they became ill. And ill cows produce ill milk.’
READ MORE: A hearty portion of common sense, please. There’s no such thing as bad food, says the scientist behind a new healthy eating app. Intrigued, Tom Parker Bowles downloads it and digests the facts
Add in hygiene standards that ranged from the poor to the non-existent, and pasteurisation became an essential and life-saving innovation. These days, though, English and Welsh raw-milk producers (the milk is still illegal in Scotland, for some unfathomable reason) operate to some of the highest hygiene standards in the world.
In 2014, once the FSA had visited Hook and Son (as well as Ellie’s Dairy in Kent), its officials were, in the words of Mr Hook, ‘incredibly impressed. And began to understand that farmers could produce raw milk safely, train staff, have food management systems in place, that they understood pathogen risks and mitigated those risks, and carried out independent testing to validate their raw-milk sales.’
Mr Cook points out that pasteurisation destroys goodness, adding: ‘Raw milk is a complete food, perfectly designed to grow a baby mammal for up to a year.’
His dairy herd is made up of a mix of Jerseys and alpine breeds, such as Fleckvieh and Brown Swiss.He says: ‘Your farming practices have to be very high and to make good food, you need low-stress systems. Whereas a commercial cow can produce up to 3,000 gallons of milk per year, we get only 440 to 660 gallons. But, once people have tasted it, there’s no going back.’.
By 2018, the demand for raw milk had grown five-fold and the number of licensed farmers went from 70 to 200. Now, with FSA support, there’s a Raw Milk Producers Association, which offers guidance to anyone new to the sector. As well as Hook and Son there is the Morwick Dairy, Northumberland, where Ben Howie started with an ice-cream parlour and then began selling raw milk in 2016.
He says: ‘It’s an intensely local product. All I can say is ‘give it a go’. Once tasted, you’ll be hooked.’
As to the health benefits of raw milk, its supporters, of which there are many, claim it can lower your cholesterol, fight infection and offer an incredible source of protein, as well as help with eczema, asthma and many allergies. It’s even suitable for those with lactose intolerances.
I’ve spoken to many people who swear by its beneficial properties, but as Mr Hook points out, ‘the only real claims that pasteurised milk can legally make is it being a good source of calcium and possibly a good source of protein’. The problem is that there has been no serious research into raw milk’s benefits.
‘Why is raw milk such a mystery?’ Mr Hook asks. ‘Very simple. It’s not in the corporate food world’s interest for this knowledge to be out there.’
In the meantime, give raw milk a chance. Not only will you be supporting a dairy industry already on its knees, but you’ll be giving those taste buds an experience they’ll never forget. The fact that it may have other benefits simply makes raw milk taste all the more sweet.