Comments by "Theodore Shulman" (@ColonelFredPuntridge) on "WHO, AZ vaccine safe and effective" video.

@sjetong I got terrible headaches from taking the vaccine, but the headaches began one week before I took the first dose. The doctors at my local hospital said cases like mine - temporal retroactivity in vaccination - do sometimes happen, although it's quite a rare thing.
4
@letmeexplain1816 Severe migraines are not a very bad reaction; they tend to go away after one or two episodes if they are a reaction to a one-time or two-time stimulus, and, getting the disease can give you migraines as well as the vaccine.
4
That's a stupid lie. The doctor wouldn't rely on the patient thinking that she had worms or did not have worms. Obviously, if the doctor suspected she had worms, he would test her for worms. They're not that hard to diagnose. (Doioioioi!)
4
@penelopebirnstingl7837 Always remember to wash your mouth out and gargle three times after you vomit. Protect your teeth from the acid!
3
Adverse events reported by whom? To whom?
2
I ask because in USA we have VAERS which anti-Vax loop-a-dupes cite all the time even though it’s self reported and almost entirely unconfirmed and it warns readers that it doesn’t prove anything at all and should not be cited as evidence for anything.
2
@bobbobertson6249 No. People get migraines for many different reasons, some of which are very poorly understood. It's basically unpredictable (well, there are circumstances which one can reasonably expect will cause a migraine, especially if you know the patient well, but there's no way to be sure someone is not about to get one. The fact that a given person has not had one before does not guarantee that he won't get one tomorrow or later today, and we often don't know what the cause is.)
2
Did Shakespeare get the jab?
1
We in USA were spared almost all the horror of Thalidomide, because of a hero (actually a heroine) Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, who worked for FDA and steadfastly refused to approve Thalidomide, demanding rigorous proof of safety for the fetuses, which of course could not be provided, because it's not safe. She resisted in the face of enormous lobbying and pressure. That is why countries like Germany had thousands of cases while USA had fewer than twenty.
1
@brianjohnston2897 Where was your mother when she was advised to take Thalidomide?
1
@kevreilly7 AZT was a very reasonable choice against HIV when Dr. Fauci recommended it. The problem is the side-effects when you take it for a long time, but, HIV also causes lots of harm in the long-term.
1
But how many of the thousands had gotten the jab?
1
Then the cause of your symptoms is obvious: some genetic disorder caused by too much inbreeding in your hamlet, or, by too much bestiality.
1
Hmmm! My best friend got the jab, and his acne cleared up, and two weeks later he ran a marathon, and the day after that he won the lottery and got half a million dollars in prize-money. Anecdotes don't prove much, I guess.
1
@vipeev Prosecution for what?
1
@lostintranslation1957 Then the commenter should be citing the thousands of other verified accounts (with links), not posting anecdotes.
1
@annieo4442 How does your cardiologist know that the vaccine is the cause? How does he (or she) know the cause wasn't something else?
1
@vipeev In USA, all vaccine makers of any kind have the same exemption, which is that they have their cases decided by special courts rather than ordinary courts. The history of this policy is kind of interesting. The vaccine makers were getting hammered with junk lawsuits filed by people who suffered ordinary problems but found it convenient to blame the vaccines they took, often with coaching by corrupt ambulance-chasing lawyers. Juries made up of uneducated idiots who didn't know the difference between B-cells and B-movies, were deciding in favor of the plaintiffs, and the companies were going bankrupt paying huge damages in huge class-action lawsuits based on junk science and anti-vax loop-a-dupery. So the companies said to the lawmakers in the government in USA: if you don't fix this problem and protect us from these morons, we will have to stop selling vaccines altogether in USA. Ask your voters how they like the prospect of going back to worrying about polio, and measles, and mumps. And the legislators realized that their voters wouldn't like it at all! And created the special court-system for vaccine-makers.
1
How do you know - I mean, what makes you think you know - that she wouldn't have had the stroke anyway, even if she had not taken the vaccine? People get strokes for many different reasons, including, sometimes, no reason at all, just bad luck. How do you know that your wife isn't one of those who just happened, unluckily, to have a stroke which just happened to happen after she took the vaccine?
1
@calluna5030 Thank you for the info!
1
@ThePantygun With anti-vaxers. Anti-vaxers are very dangerous. We could easily end up with polio as a thing everyone had to worry about again. Everyone, from FDR to the lowliest tramp, lived in terror of polio, back in the day.
1
@ThePantygun Yes, false vaccination can be a real problem. I had a friend who went in to get vaccinated against scabies, and the nurse vaccinated her against rabies. Horrible! Then she got scabies and had to take ivermectin in order to get rid of the scabies.
1
Me too! I got atrial fibrillation, and then I got vaccinated. It's a very rare thing: a time-inverted side-effect. Usually the side effect happens after you get the causative stimulus, but this time the time-factor was inverted and I got the atrial fibrillation before the jab which caused the atrial fibrillation. My doctors said it only happens this way in around 0.05 percent of cases.
1
@Mark_Meisho_Thompson I had an EKG done at an urgent care center, and the results appeared normal. I didn't discuss them with the technician who took the data, but the results sent to my primary care physician showed normal ekg patterns. Then I got the jab, and two weeks later, the cardiologist's office reported to the primary care doctor that the first results of the EKG - the normal-appearing result - had been reported as result of a clerical error and that I had actually had atrial fibrillation at the time. A friend of mine had a similar event, but she missed her appointment for the jab and did not get one, and it turned out in her case that her cardiologist had made an error too, but his error was that he had erroneously thought his office had made an error and that her apparently-normal result was wrong. But after she missed her appointment and did not get the jab, the cardiologist sent a second notice to her primary care doctor, saying that his report of an error was itself erroneous (caused by a clerical worker who was addicted to prescription medications and had made a number of similar wrong diagnoses of clerical errors, which were very embarrassing for her employer the cardiologist) and that her original result - normal rhythm - was in fact correct. So I, who got the jab, had atrial fibrillation before getting it, and she who had only scheduled the jab but not gotten it, had had a normal rhythm before failing (and later declining) to get it. So we think now that my getting the jab was what caused me, retroactively, to have atrial fibrillation before I got it, and that if I had not gotten the jab, then I would not have had atrial fibrillation before not getting the jab. I know this seems unlikely - the idea that a vaccine could cause an adverse side-effect before the vaccine is administered, but this pandemic is so full of surprises that some suspension of disbelief seems to be warranted. (A good scientist must always be open to new possibilities which previously seemed impossible or at least very counterintuitive.) Also, similar cases have been reported in other parts of the world: Russia (Vologda) and one from Indonesia. There may also be additional cases which were never reported because the physicians involved simply could not accept the possibility of temporally retroactive side-effects. So my case may only be the tip of the iceberg.
1
@layersoftheonion8168 VAERS does not confirm or verify its reports in any systematic way. 99% of VAERS reports never get verified. That is why VAERS warns ON ITS OWN WEB SITE that it's numbers do NOT prove anything at all.
1
@layersoftheonion8168 With VAERS??? No. You don't sign any pledge or oath when you file a report. Because you're not alleging that the event was caused by the vaccine, only that an event occurred after you got one, and you're not demanding any money or being rewarded in any way for filing the report. Maybe if you were a practicing physician and you filed a false report about yourself or a patient you could suffer some damage to your reputation, but for an ordinary person to file a false report, no, I'm quite sure that's not a crime or offense, since it's not signed under oath. Why do you ask about gene therapy? That has nothing to do with vaccines. The term "gene therapy" has changed its meaning in a pretty big way since I worked alongside people who were working on it, back in the early 2000s. I can explain the details - what it used to mean and what it means now - but neither meaning has anything to do with vaccination except in a very contrived and superficial way.
1
 @letmeexplain1816 My best friend has been experiencing severe migraine headaches for more than twelve years.
1
@bobbobertson6249 More to the point, if you got sick after one dose, then why in the world did the doctor - why in the world would any doctor - tell you to take a second dose??? Of anything??? Doctors know that although complications are rare, they do, sometimes, happen to some patients, and they will advise you not to take a second dose if you react badly to the first one. At very least they will tell you to try a different vaccine, which has a different formulation from the one that caused the bad reaction. The whole line "I suffered a bad reaction to the first dose and my doctor said it was my imagination and pressured me to take a second dose!" is almost always a lie being told by a knee-jerk-ideological anti-vaxxer who thinks that vaccines are contrary to his god's plan or some such loop-a-dupery. In real life, any doctor to whom you report having had a bad reaction to anything (to a vaccine or to anything else) will tell you to stop whatever the thing you reacted to was, unless it's absolutely necessary to keep you alive. No doctor says, for instance, that if you break out in a rash after taking vitamin D, or feel too keyed up to sleep when drinking coffee, or have a bad response to Viagra, then you have to take more vitamin D, or coffee, or Viagra. What possible benefit could there be for the doctor or for the patient in making you repeat a stimulus which you had reacted badly to??? Doctors want their patients to get well and stay well. That's what it means for a doctor to be doing his job well.
1
@lissyboo8878 If the doctor recommended that you take more vaccine after you reported experiencing an uncomfortable or alarming side-effect, that is medical malpractice. You can sue (and you should). And you don't need any anti-vaxers on the jury in order to win. Your argument is SOME people DO experience side-effects of EVERY treatment including vaccines, and to repeat the stimulus (whatever it may be - a vaccine, or a statin, or a particular antibiotic you are allergic to, or whatever) after the patient has experienced a bad reaction is rank malpractice. No one, absolutely no one, pretends to believe that there are ZERO bad reactions to any particular vaccine! If it's not the mRNA, it can be something else in the vaccine - an adjuvant compound in the vaccine, or a vector.
1
@BonsuBigWhale Adverse events are OVER-reported. For every patient who suffers in silence, there are ten or more non-patients who report fake adverse events because of anti-vax ideology or just because they want attention. And each one of them causes more damage to public health than the one who suffers without reporting. Anti-vax is bad for you. The anti-vax-for-profit ideology peddlers are much worse for you than any drug company or public advocate. If the anti-vax-for-profit-ideology peddlers get their way, we will go back to the 1930s and everyone from the next President of USA to the baby born yesterday to your humble next-door neighbor will be living in terror of polio again. These guys almost brought down the vaccine companies in USA. That is how the vaccine companies eventually got a special court system which excluded the know-nothing jurors who had been awarding crippling damages based on anti-vax junk science: they (the vaccine companies) started going bankrupt.
1
We should be using protein vaccines. That was the original plan; mRNA was supposed to be an emergency response. Warp speed, remember?
1
@StevenCashel Absolutely. A lot of these anti-vax fictional stories are easy to spot because they attribute implausible behavior to doctors. The idea of a doctor who suspects worms or some other illness which is known to be treatable with Ivermectin, relying on the patient self-diagnosing the illness instead of testing the patient's stool (or whatever) is just silly. It would be rank malpractice. The medical board would ask him, under oath, "if you thought the patient might have worms (or any parasite), why didn't you test for them?" And if he can't give a good answer, then his career will be in danger. It's not difficult to test for parasites. You just dissolve a small sample of the patient's solid waste (or dead skin or hair or blood or whatever shedding part the suspected parasite is supposed to be occupying) in some water or saline, and use an inexpensive dipstick, like testing a woman's urine for pregnancy. Parasitic organisms make particular proteins which the human host does not make (just as pregnant women, and only pregnant women, make human chorionic gonadotropin (with a couple of exceptions like patients with certain cancers)), so the antibody-based dipstick can detect them. The idea of a doctor relying on a patient's word to determine whether the patient had or did not have worms (or some other parasite) is not plausible. Doctors are not generally careless, stupid, or self-destructive. Those who are get weeded out. Exceptions tend to be few, far-between, and visible, like rogue professionals who murder their patients, or gross serial-malpractitioners.
1
@StevenCashel Safe? That is not disputed. But is it effective against COVID? That IS disputed. And where is there legislation saying what a doctor may prescribe any given drug for? Not in USA.
1
@KJ-lb4tj Doctors in the industrialized world don't usually test for worms, because most people here don't get them. That's the point. That's why we don't usually take Ivermectin here.
1
@adrianjohnson7920 Worms, and parasites generally, come in different sizes. Some are observable with the naked eye; others not so much.
1
@jamescollins3647 Which other stuff do you mean?
1
@recumbentrocks2929 She didn't need Ivermectin, though, since she didn't have worms.
1
Even after you watch the video, you still don't know. Everything Dr John says could be wrong, and you wouldn't know!
1
@UniversallyEnergetic The question remains: do you know enough to understand the papers he links to? To an untrained reader they might as well be written in secret code. The idea that you can "check for yourself" is, for most people, an illusion. For instance, suppose there were an important confounding factor the authors were overlooking. Would you be able to spot it?
1