MURHA.INFO

Kelaamaton kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 12:08 am

Don MC kirjoitti: Su Marras 28, 2021 11:58 pm

ScamJaffa kirjoitti: Su Marras 28, 2021 11:27 pm Perusterve ei sairastu koronan vakavaan muotoon, kuten ei myöskään lapset.

Just.
Niitä kuuluisia viimeisiä sanoja. Noita edellä on vain ”pitelepä kaljaani hetki niin mä näytän”.

Perusterve ei tarvitse rokotteita. Eikä pienet lapset.

Samira kirjoitti: Su Marras 28, 2021 11:03 pm

ScamJaffa kirjoitti: Su Marras 28, 2021 10:45 pm Rokotteen haitta lapselle on moninkertainen hyötyyn nähden

Ja lähteenä tietty joku blogipostaus tai YouTube-video?

Insattsgruppen kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 8:25 am Ja näin sanovat KAIKKI johtavat virologit. Mutta media on poliitikoiden talutusnuorassa jotka ovat lääketeollisuuden huoria.

•Bulk of COVID-19 per capita deaths occur in elderly with high comorbidities.

•Per capita COVID-19 deaths are negligible in children.

•Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term.

•Clinical trials did not address long-term effects most relevant to children.

•High post-inoculation deaths reported in VAERS (very short-term).

Abstract
This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children. Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.

A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.

3.1.3. Potential short-, mid-, and long-term risks of mass COVID-19 inoculation for children
3.1.3.1. Intrinsic inoculant toxicity
Children are unique relative to COVID-19. They have negligible risks of serious effects from the disease, as shown in Fig. 1. Given that the COVID-19 inoculants were only tested for a few months, and mid-or long-term adverse effects are unknown, any mid- or long-term adverse events that emerge could impact children adversely for decades.

We believe that mid-or long-term adverse effects are possible based on the recent emergence of evidence that would support the probability of mid-and long-term adverse effects from the COVID-19 inoculants, such as:
1)
The spike protein itself can be a toxin/pathogenic protein:

2)
S protein alone can damage vascular endothelial cells (ECs) by downregulating ACE2 and consequently inhibiting mitochondrial function [37].

3)
it is concluded that ACE2 and endothelial damage is a central part of SARS-CoV2 pathology and may be induced by the spike protein alone [38].

4)
the spike protein of SARS-CoV-1 (without the rest of the virus) reduces ACE2 expression, increases angiotensin II levels, exacerbates lung injury, and triggers cell signaling events that may promote pulmonary vascular remodeling and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) as well as possibly other cardiovascular complications [39].

5)
the recombinant S protein alone elicits functional alterations in cardiac vascular pericytes (PCs) [40]. This was documented as:

6)
increased migration

7)
reduced ability to support EC network formation on Matrigel


secretion of pro-inflammatory molecules typically involved in the cytokine storm

9)
production of pro-apoptotic factors responsible for EC death. Furthermore, the S protein stimulates the phosphorylation/activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2) through the CD147 receptor, but not ACE2, in cardiac PCs, the S protein may elicit vascular cell dysfunction, potentially amplifying, or perpetuating, the damage caused by the whole coronavirus [40].

10)
“even in the absence of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, the S1 subunit from SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding to neutral phospholipid membranes leads to their mechanical destabilization and permeabilization. A similar cytotoxic effect of the protein was seen in human lung epithelial cells.” [125].

11)
The LNP layer encapsulating the mRNA of the inoculant is highly inflammatory in both intradermal and intranasal inoculation [41] and “Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a cause of anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine” [42]. “Humans are likely developing PEG antibodies because of exposure to everyday products containing PEG. Therefore, some of the immediate allergic responses observed with the first shot of mRNA-LNP vaccines might be related to pre-existing PEG antibodies. Since these vaccines often require a booster shot, anti-PEG antibody formation is expected after the first shot. Thus, the allergic events are likely to increase upon re-vaccination” [43].

There is also the possibility that the components of the LNP shell could induce the ASIA Syndrome (autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants), as shown by studies on post-inoculation thyroid hyperactivity [44] and post-inoculation subacute thyroiditis [45].

12
The spike protein has been found in the plasma of post-inoculation individuals, implying that it could circulate to, and impact adversely, any part of the body [46].

13
The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier in mice [47], and “the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins trigger a pro-inflammatory response on brain endothelial cells that may contribute to an altered state of BBB function” [48].

14
The spike proteins manufactured in vivo by the present COVID-19 inoculations could potentially "precipitate the onset of autoimmunity in susceptible subgroups, and potentially exacerbate autoimmunity in subjects that have pre-existing autoimmune diseases", based on the finding that anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein antibodies cross-reacted with 28 of 55 diverse human tissue antigens [49].

15
“The biodistribution of ChaAdOx1 [Astra Zeneca’s recombinant adenovirus vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2] in mice confirmed the delivery of vaccine into the brain tissues [50]. The vaccine may therefore spur the brain cells to produce CoViD spike proteins that may lead to an immune response against brain cells, or it may spark a spike protein-induced thrombosis. This may explain the peculiar incidences of the fatal cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) observed with viral vector-based CoViD-19 vaccines” [51,52].

A complementary perspective to explain adenovirus-based vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia is that “transcription of wildtype and codon-optimized Spike open reading frames enables alternative splice events that lead to C-terminal truncated, soluble Spike protein variants. These soluble Spike variants may initiate severe side effects when binding to ACE2-expressing endothelial cells in blood vessels.” [100].

16
A Pfizer Confidential study performed in Japan showed that "modRNA encoding luciferase formulated in LNP comparable to BNT162b2″ injected intramuscularly concentrated in many organs/tissues in addition to the injection site [53]. The main organs/sites identified were adrenal glands, liver, spleen, bone marrow, and ovaries. While damage to any of these organs/sites could be serious (if real for humans), adverse effects on the ovaries could be potentially catastrophic for women of childbearing or pre-childbearing age.

4. Discussion
Two issues arise from these results.

First, where is the data justifying inoculation for children, much less most people under forty? It's not found on Fig. 1, where the most vulnerable are almost exclusively the elderly with many comorbidities [83]. Yet, in the USA, Pfizer has been approved to inoculate children 12–17, and the goal is to accomplish this by the start of the school year in the Fall. As stated previously, there are plans to inoculate children as young as six months starting before the end of 2021.

What is the rush for a group at essentially zero risks? Given that the inoculations were tested only for a few months, only very short-term adverse effects could be obtained. It is questionable how well even these short-term effects obtained from the clinical trials reflect the short-term effects from the initial mass inoculation results reported in VAERS.

Fig. 1, Fig. 2 reflect only these very short-term results. A number of researchers have suggested the possibility of severe longer-term autoimmune, Antibody-Dependent Enhancement, neurological, and other potentially serious effects, with lag periods ranging from months to years. If such effects do turn out to be real, the children are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of the suffering. There appear to be no benefits for the children and young adults from the inoculations and only Costs!

The second issue is why the deaths shown on Fig. 2 were not predicted by the clinical trials. We examined the Pfizer trial results (based on a few months of testing) and did not see how (potentially) hundreds of thousands of deaths could have been predicted from the trials’ mortality results. Why this gap?

As we showed in the clinical trials section, 17.4 % of the Pfizer sample members were over 65, and 4.4 % were over 75. When the later phases of the trials started in late July 2020, the managers knew the COVID-19 age demographics affected from the July 2020 analog of Fig. 1. Rather than sampling from the age region most affected, they sampled mainly from the age region least affected! And even in the very limited sampling from the oldest groups, it is unclear whether they selected from those with the most serious comorbidities. Our impression is that the sickest were excluded from the trials, but were first in line for the inoculants.

Overall conclusions
The people with myriad comorbidities in the age range where most deaths with COVID-19 occurred were in very poor health. Their deaths did not seem to increase all-cause mortality as shown in several studies. If they hadn't died with COVID-19, they probably would have died from the flu or many of the other comorbidities they had. We can't say for sure that many/most died from COVID-19 because of: 1) how the PCR tests were manipulated to give copious false positives and 2) how deaths were arbitrarily attributed to COVID-19 in the presence of myriad comorbidities.

The graphs presented in this paper indicate that the frail injection recipients receive minimal benefit from the inoculation. Their basic problem is a dysfunctional immune system, resulting in part or in whole from a lifetime of toxic exposures and toxic behaviors. They are susceptible to either the wild virus triggering the dysfunctional immune system into over-reacting or under-reacting, leading to poor outcomes or the injection doing the same.

This can be illustrated by the following analogy. A person stands in a bare metal enclosure. What happens when the person lights a match and drops it on the floor depends on what is on the floor. If the floor remains bare metal, the match burns for a few seconds until extinguished. If there is a sheet of paper on the floor under the match, the match and the paper will burn for a short time until both are extinguished. If, however, the floor is covered with ammonium nitrate and similar combustible/explosive materials, a major explosion will result! For COVID-19, the wild virus is the match. The combustible materials are the toxic exposures and toxic behaviors. If there are no biomarker ‘footprints’ from toxic exposures and toxic behaviors, nothing happens. If there are significant biomarker ‘footprints’ from toxic exposures and toxic behaviors, bad outcomes result.

Adequate safety testing of the COVID-19 inoculations would have provided a distribution of the outcomes to be expected from ‘lighting the match’. Since adequate testing was not performed, we have no idea how many combustible materials are on the floor, and what the expected outcomes will be from ‘lighting the match’.

The injection goes two steps further than the wild virus because 1) it contains the instructions for making the spike protein, which several experiments are showing can cause vascular and other forms of damage, and 2) it bypasses many front-line defenses of the innate immune system to enter the bloodstream directly in part. Unlike the virus example, the injection ensures there will always be some combustible materials on the floor, even if there are no other toxic exposures or behaviors. In other words, the spike protein and the surrounding LNP are toxins with the potential to cause myriad short-, mid-, and long-term adverse health effects even in the absence of other contributing factors! Where and when these effects occur will depend on the biodistribution of the injected material. Pfizer’s own biodistribution studies have shown the injected material can be found in myriad critical organs throughout the body, leading to the possibility of multi-organ failure. And these studies were from a single injection. Multiple injections and booster shots may have cumulative effects on organ distributions of inoculant!

The COVID-19 reported deaths are people who died with COVID-19, not necessarily from COVID-19. Likewise, the VAERS deaths are people who have died following inoculation, not necessarily from inoculation.

As stated before, CDC showed that 94 % of the reported deaths had multiple comorbidities, thereby reducing the CDC's numbers attributed strictly to COVID-19 to about 35,000 for all age groups. Given the number of high false positives from the high amplification cycle PCR tests, and the willingness of healthcare professionals to attribute death to COVID-19 in the absence of tests or sometimes even with negative PCR tests, this 35,000 number is probably highly inflated as well.

On the latter issue, both Virginia Stoner [85] and Jessica Rose [86] have shown independently that the deaths following inoculation are not coincidental and are strongly related to inoculation through strong clustering around the time of injection. Our independent analyses of the VAERS database reported in Appendix 1 confirmed these clustering findings.

Additionally, VAERS historically has under-reported adverse events by about two orders-of-magnitude, so COVID-19 inoculation deaths in the short-term could be in the hundreds of thousands for the USA for the period mid-December 2020 to the end of May 2021, potentially swamping the real COVID-19 deaths. Finally, the VAERS deaths reported so far are for the very short term. We have no idea what the death numbers will be in the intermediate and long-term; the clinical trials did not test for those.

The clinical trials used a non-representative younger and healthier sample to get EUA for the injection. Following EUA, the mass inoculations were administered to the very sick (and first responders) initially, and many died quite rapidly. However, because the elderly who died following COVID-19 inoculation were very frail with multiple comorbidities, their deaths could easily be attributed to causes other than the injection (as should have been the case for COVID-19 deaths as well).

Now the objective is the inoculation of the total USA population. Since many of these potential serious adverse effects have built-in lag times of at least six months or more, we won't know what they are until most of the population has been inoculated, and corrective action may be too late.

Insattsgruppen kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 8:29 am

Samira kirjoitti: Su Marras 28, 2021 11:03 pm

ScamJaffa kirjoitti: Su Marras 28, 2021 10:45 pm

Rokotteen haitta lapselle on moninkertainen hyötyyn nähden

Ja lähteenä tietty joku blogipostaus tai YouTube-video?

Kyllä sinä jaksat olla tyhmä. Tänne on linkitetty tutkimus mikä totesi että rokotteiden haittavaikutukset ovat kuusi kertaa isompi lapsille kuin long covidin sairastamisen riski. Mutta se on monen sivun takana ja toivot tietenkin että se olisi unohdettu.

– Salaliittoteoreetikoiden kanssa on tosiasiassa miltei mahdotonta väitellä, sillä he eivät ole rationaalisia. Päinvastoin – kun heille esitetään faktatodisteita siitä, että heidän väitteensä ovat vääriä, he torjuvat niin tosiasiat kuin niiden esittäjän.

– Jos tällainen käyttäytyminen selittyy yksilöiden psykologisilla taipumuksilla, salaliittoteorioista vakuuttunutta henkilöä on ikävä kyllä jokseenkin mahdotonta saada järkiinsä.

teppo kirjoitti: Su Marras 28, 2021 11:15 am

holmesin haamu kirjoitti: La Marras 27, 2021 5:01 pm Toki en sano sikakoiran olevan mikään totuuden torvi, vaan enemmänkin hän tutkii asioita laaja-alaisesti.

Ei. Laaja-alaisuutta tuossa ei ole ollenkaan. Nimimerkki Sikakoira jakaa aiheesta riippumatta niitä tavanomaisimpia trollijuttuja. Eikä myöskään minkäänmoista tutkimusta tai tutkimista tuohon sisälly. Onko ihan aidosti niin, että et ollenkaan havaitse eroa tutkimisen ja trollaamisen välillä?

Don MC kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 11:04 am Muistutetaan taas kerran mikä näitä rokotevastaisia ajaa:

– Salaliittoteoreetikoiden kanssa on tosiasiassa miltei mahdotonta väitellä, sillä he eivät ole rationaalisia. Päinvastoin – kun heille esitetään faktatodisteita siitä, että heidän väitteensä ovat vääriä, he torjuvat niin tosiasiat kuin niiden esittäjän.

– Jos tällainen käyttäytyminen selittyy yksilöiden psykologisilla taipumuksilla, salaliittoteorioista vakuuttunutta henkilöä on ikävä kyllä jokseenkin mahdotonta saada järkiinsä.

https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/uskotko-sa ... oo-sinusta

Samira kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 10:53 am Kyllä sinä jaksat olla tyhmä. Maailmassa ei rokotettaisi yhtään lasta, jos väitteesi pitäisi paikkaansa. Sinun tarjoileman ”kuka ajattelisi lapsia”- kuvaston perusteella on perusteltu vaikka mitä typeryyksiä halki maailmanhistorian huumesodasta lähtien. Olet vain rokotevastainen ressukka, joka siteeraa tiedettä silloin kun se omaan agendaan sopii. Käskin jo puoli vuotta sitten olla postaamatta tieteellisiä tutkimuksia, joita et osaa tulkita. Maailma on täynnä heikkoja tutkimuksia, joissa on päädytty väärään lopputulemaan. Niiden pohjalta maailmankuvan luominen johtaa harhaan.

Insattsgruppen kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 9:01 am Massarokotukset alle 40 vuotiaille ja eteenkin lapsille on ERITTÄIN kyseenalaista sillä sille ei ole lääketieteellistä perustelua eikä tietoa ole pitkäaikaisista haittavaikutuksista.

Samira kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 10:53 am

Insattsgruppen kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 8:29 am

Samira kirjoitti: Su Marras 28, 2021 11:03 pm


Ja lähteenä tietty joku blogipostaus tai YouTube-video?

Kyllä sinä jaksat olla tyhmä. Tänne on linkitetty tutkimus mikä totesi että rokotteiden haittavaikutukset ovat kuusi kertaa isompi lapsille kuin long covidin sairastamisen riski. Mutta se on monen sivun takana ja toivot tietenkin että se olisi unohdettu.

Kyllä sinä jaksat olla tyhmä. Maailmassa ei rokotettaisi yhtään lasta, jos väitteesi pitäisi paikkaansa. Sinun tarjoileman ”kuka ajattelisi lapsia”- kuvaston perusteella on perusteltu vaikka mitä typeryyksiä halki maailmanhistorian huumesodasta lähtien. Olet vain rokotevastainen ressukka, joka siteeraa tiedettä silloin kun se omaan agendaan sopii. Käskin jo puoli vuotta sitten olla postaamatta tieteellisiä tutkimuksia, joita et osaa tulkita. Maailma on täynnä heikkoja tutkimuksia, joissa on päädytty väärään lopputulemaan. Niiden pohjalta maailmankuvan luominen johtaa harhaan.

damfin kirjoitti: Ma Marras 29, 2021 8:29 am Iltasanomat oli haastatellut muutamia rokottamattomia ja kysellyt syytä rokottamattomuuteen, useilla yhtenä syynä näyttäisi olevan se että he asuvat korvessa eivätkä liiku ihmisten ilmoilla joten eivät katso tarvitsevansa rokotetta.

Täälläkin havaittavissa se että rokotevastaiset ovat pääasiassa näitä peräkammariin foliolla peitettyjen ikkunoiden taakse linnoittautuneita "mitään pelkäämättömiä" sankareita joiden yhteys ulkomaailmaan perustuu minfon keskustelufoorumiin ja trollisivustoihin, eiväthän he tietenkään koe rokotetta tarpeelliseksi.