For cov-vax hesitant only (Rest of you will not like)

Leahh

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 3:54 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

Incorrect.

There have been ZERO studies on the effects of Covid Vaccine (or ANY vaccine) and Fertility!

So nothing was Disproven.

You're right. Not scientifically disproven.
But said to have no effect.
But clearly it does just based on the amount of women that have messed up cycles after having gotten the vaccine.
Truthfully, nothing related to COVID or the vaccines has been proven or disproven scientifically because neither is around long enough for studies to have been properly conducted.

SixOfWands

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 4:01 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

Incorrect.

There have been ZERO studies on the effects of Covid Vaccine (or ANY vaccine) and Fertility!

So nothing was Disproven.

Nor have they determined that children who got covid won't all be sterile, so that the vaccine will be a savior for humanity.

In fact, there have been ZERO studies as to the effects of bungalow colonies on fertility. Anecdotally, I can tell you that my 2 BILs grew up in bungalow colonies, and 1 had only 1 child, and the other is childless (we have 4).

No studies on the use of contact lenses on fertility.

Or refrigerating eggs.

Understanding the vaccine mechanism leads one to understand that it is extremely unlikely that it would affect fertility. But why don't you explain to me exactly how it would work, first with the mRNA vaccines, then with the more typical J&J.

naomi2

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 4:33 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

What a cute and humorous post
Only time will tell and that is what separates the vaccine from all the other items on your list.

amother

Pumpkin

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 4:45 pm

naomi2 wrote:

What a cute and humorous post
Only time will tell and that is what separates the vaccine from all the other items on your list.

I myself and many many other women have gotten pregnant after the vaccine. so time already has told . nothing will ever be enough proof for anti-vaxxers.. so won't waste my time arguing..

amother

Floralwhite

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 6:34 pm

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

I myself and many many other women have gotten pregnant after the vaccine. so time already has told . nothing will ever be enough proof for anti-vaxxers.. so won't waste my time arguing..

Long term means more than a few months. It means a few years, to see if all systems develop normally. And that no other neurological, immunological, hormonal, cognitive, or physical issues etc develop. I hope this vaccine is harmless but for Drs to assure you that they are when they don't have the information yet is plain wrong.
You can call me anti-vax and sneer at me but just so you know, many people who are hesitant to vaccinate thought like you until they got burned. Please don't judge.

Leahh

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 8:01 pm

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

I myself and many many other women have gotten pregnant after the vaccine. so time already has told . nothing will ever be enough proof for anti-vaxxers.. so won't waste my time arguing..

People that are against the COVID vaccine are NOT anti vaxxers. Some may be but most are just concerned about taking an experimental drug for no valid reason.
There are lots of experimental cancer treatments. Is anyone telling non-cancer patients to try them? No. Even sick people that have other options usually don't try the experimental drugs. You don't call those people anti-medication (and other not nice names). So don't call people that don't want to take an experiment vaccine anti-vaxxers.
(I apologize for desensitizing cancer. I don't mean to. I am just trying to get a point across and I feel that that may speak to people more)
To your point of getting pregnant after the vaccine, yes, people can. However look at how many women on this site alone are complaining of wacky cycles from the vaccine. Doesn't that count for anything.
Only the people that don't have a reaction and are willing to be guinea pigs can have a voice. Everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about and won't believe any proof you show!?
Show the proof. Then we'll talk

amother

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 8:52 pm

Zus this is another article just for you by a PhD MD whose specialty covers the field of science at hand. Linked are old published journal articles supporting his simple for laymen explanation.

Its a good read for everone else. It is reprinted on this site, not written for it.

https://childrenshealthdefense.....0ef48

Basically concludes mrna (second worse in his view, via pfizer & moderna) & dna (jnj, the worst in his opinion) is not proven safe. If you are vaxxing Novavax (injecting a spike protein), Sinovac & Sinopharm (these 2 insert a whole inactivated virus like our modern polio vax) are the way to go.

The onus is on the drug companies to prove without a shadow of a doubt that in long term studies they cannot (not do not) alter dna, which is not done yet. Because in his professional experience it is proven that it can happen, journal articles available. And when it does happen, it will be permanent for all the generations.

amother

Navy

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 9:11 pm

Isnt the title of this thread for those “hesitant about the coivd vax only”?
I was hoping to read a thread safe for those hesitant about the covid vax. ( note : hesitant. Not anti) and without any shouting /sarcasm bullying /or worse.
Thanks for those who shared information civilly. Unfortunately couldn’t get through it all. I’m too sensitive. Let me know if its safe to come out and read again

amother

Tue, Apr 13 2021, 9:57 pm

Another interesting find from tel aviv university was that those vaccinated are 8x more likely than unvaccinated to contract some of the more serious variants.

I read elsewhere that the T cells from natural infection (as opposed to antibodies) are much more protective of variants than those who have vaccine induced immunity. So for those who had the virus, it seems prudent to hold on longer for a safer product. Consumers dictate markets.

#BestBubby

Wed, Apr 14 2021, 10:05 pm

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

I myself and many many other women have gotten pregnant after the vaccine. so time already has told . nothing will ever be enough proof for anti-vaxxers.. so won't waste my time arguing..

You think if a vaccine doesn't make EVERYONE infertile, that is "proof" it makes NO ONE infertile???

SixOfWands

Wed, Apr 14 2021, 10:35 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

You think if a vaccine doesn't make EVERYONE infertile, that is "proof" it makes NO ONE infertile???

You're correct. Its not. But it amply demonstrates that there is currently no evidence that the vaccine causes infertility. Nor is there any reason to believe that it would or could.

SixOfWands

Wed, Apr 14 2021, 10:44 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

The article posits that because Covid itself may alter your DNA, it is possible that an mRNA vaccine -- which cannot of itself alter DNA -- could do so.

So if you're eschewing vaccination in order to avoid a hypothetical alteration to your DNA, preferring the actual infection, that would be a bad idea based on the article.

I note that CHD is a noted anti-vax advocacy group. The article was nonetheless interesting.

amother

Pink

Wed, Apr 14 2021, 10:51 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Another interesting find from tel aviv university was that those vaccinated are 8x more likely than unvaccinated to contract some of the more serious variants.

You phrased this backwards.
The variant was more able to break through the vaccine protection than the regular covid.

“Researchers at Tel Aviv University and Clalit, the largest health-care organization in Israel, examined nearly 400 people who had tested positive for Covid-19 after receiving at least one dose of the vaccine. They compared them to the same number of people who were infected and unvaccinated.

The researchers found the prevalence of the variant from South Africa, known as B.1.351, among patients who received two doses of the vaccine was about eight times higher than those who were unvaccinated. The data, published online over the weekend, suggest the B.1.351 is better able to "break through" the protection of the vaccine than the original strain, the researchers wrote in the study”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/.....cine/

wiki

Wed, Apr 14 2021, 10:52 pm

amother [ White ] wrote:

Just a side point, why are you all so sarcastic towards non vaxxers? They dont judge you for vaccinating so why cant you let them choose what they want to do with their bodies/their children?

This thread has an ample amount of sarcasm going the other way also, with vaccine-sceptics getting acerbic at the pro-vaccine people.

Emotions run high either way because:
--Pro-vaxxers maintain that getting the vast overwhelming majority of the public vaccinated will save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. It will reopen the global economy safely and prevent the mutation and spread of variants that might, G-d forbid, be much more lethal to young people than the current Covid virus.
--Vax-skeptics are afraid of mass-sterilizing the young population and of being stigmatized from the normal functions of society over what they view to be a highly personal choice.

It's really like any vaccine discussion, where the passions run high because in public health, personal decisions have life-or-death impacts on the rest of society.

amother

Oak

Wed, Apr 14 2021, 11:12 pm

amother [ Pink ] wrote:

I'm not following your distinction. The study reports that people who received the vaccine were more likely to contract a specific covid variant than unvaccinated people.

It sounds like the vaccine put people at higher risk for covid, but maybe there's another explanation.

wiki

Wed, Apr 14 2021, 11:18 pm

amother [ Oak ] wrote:

You are misreading. I followed the link.

It says that among the very, very few vaccinated people who have gotten Covid (they have data on 150 cases out of millions of people), a large percentage (8 in all) have gotten the B.1.351 variant.

It says that among the [much, much] higher raw number of unvaccinated people who have gotten Covid, the B.1.351 cases make up a much lower percentage of the Covid cases (more like .75 percent of all cases).

This suggests that the vaccine gives greater protection against the 2020 types of Covid than it does for the B.1.351 variant. It certainly does not suggest that vaccination makes people any more vulnerable to the variants. In fact, Pfizer's study participants in South Africa indicated very strong protection against the variant there, where many in the placebo group were infected, but none in the experimental group were.

amother

Wed, Apr 14 2021, 11:48 pm

wiki wrote:

The way I understood the point is that natural infection T cell memory is a much greater protection than the vaccinated immune protection. This makes sense based on all of vaccine history has this pattern. Natural caused protection is a more solid protection. And this is of interest to all those who have had the virus. In some countries they say if you had the virus you do not need the vaccine, in others they want everyone to take it. But if this finding is true, those who had the virus do not gain from vaccinating, so there is certainly no rush and can wait for long term safety sudies to complete. The rest who have not caught the virus, still have the same dilemma as before of pick your poison.

wiki

Thu, Apr 15 2021, 10:23 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

This might be true for a non-mutating virus, but Covid is the sort of coronavirus that mutates pretty rapidly.

Having had Covid last year is not as protective against, say, the P1 variant, as getting a vaccine is.