‘Unintended’ Consequences of mRNA Shots

[corbe]

‘Unintended’ Consequences of mRNA Shots

by Dr. Joseph Mercola  December 20, 2021

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

“Worse Than the Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Dr. Greg Nigh, is one of the most comprehensive descriptions of the many possible unintended consequences of the mRNA gene transfer technologies incorrectly referred to as “COVID vaccines”

As of December 3, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has logged 19,886 COVID jab related deaths. Pfizer — the only company that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted full licensing for an as-yet unavailable COVID shot — accounts for 13,268 of them

Calculations suggest VAERS COVID-related reports are underreported by a factor of 41. That means that in the U.S. alone, the actual death toll may be closer to 374,576. Including international deaths reported to VAERS would put the death toll at 815,326

Key side effects that are now being reported in massive numbers include miscarriages, heart attacks, myopericarditis, thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), shingles, Bell’s palsy and a variety of permanent disabilities, many of which involve neurological dysfunction

The side effects we now see being reported were entirely predictable based on the known science detailed in Seneff’s and Nigh’s paper

MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff’s paper,1 “Worse Than the Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh, is still one of the best, most comprehensive descriptions of the many possible unintended consequences of the mRNA gene transfer technologies incorrectly referred to as “COVID vaccines.”

<..snip..>

https://noqreport.com/2021/12/20/unintended-consequences-of-mrna-shots/

[mountaineer]

Unintended, whatever. The manufacturers seem to have known the risks all along, and just want to cover them up.

Facebook's fake fact-checkers censor medical journal article on alleged safety issues with Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine study
Dated: December 19, 2021
by Sharyl Attkisson

This is a dangerous time, indeed, when self-proclaimed fact checkers and curators are permitted to control information in the name of what they claim is the public good.

This trend was relatively unheard of prior to 2016. Until that time, the shaping and censoring was largely done in an invisible way. Nobody admitted to it because the public wouldn't have stood for it. But a successful propaganda campaign I've described in my books The Smear and Slanted aimed to convince many in the public to accept third parties telling us what we can cannot know or see.

Obviously, corporate and political interests are behind the efforts, using them to keep the public from seeing or hearing information that is contrary to their paid interests.

This helps explain a lot about Facebook's indefensible censorship of a factual investigation published in the prestigious British Medical Journal.

The article by Paul Thacker exposed alleged poor practices and quality control issues during Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine studies based on whistleblower documentation.  ...

More

[Bigun]

Unintended, whatever. The manufacturers seem to have known the risks all along, and just want to cover them up.

  But I notice they did not neglect getting themselves protected from all liability!

[Hoodat]

The intended consequences of mRNA shots:

[Smokin Joe]

Pray tell, who would want an injection which

carries risk of serious (up to fatal) adverse effects...

has turned out to not prevent infection, only lessen symptoms (sounds like a treatment to me)

does not reduce viral load of those infected in spite of it...

has been shown to reduce natural immunity to the virus it is supposed to prevent?

I especially have trouble injecting children with the mRNA treatments, not only because the long term effects are a great unknown, but just on the basis of subjecting an extremely low risk group to a possibly even greater risk of life-changing adverse effects. I can find no scientific justification for the risk.

[Hoodat]

has turned out to not prevent infection, only lessen symptoms (sounds like a treatment to me)

Allegedly lessen symptoms.  Haven't seen a shred of evidence supporting this, though.

[DB]

Allegedly lessen symptoms.  Haven't seen a shred of evidence supporting this, though.

Exactly.

[Bigun]

Allegedly lessen symptoms.  Haven't seen a shred of evidence supporting this, though.

I have seen plenty of evidence that they greatly exacerbate symptoms, however.  Especially if you take one when already suffering symptoms.

[libertybele]

Pray tell, who would want an injection which

carries risk of serious (up to fatal) adverse effects...

has turned out to not prevent infection, only lessen symptoms (sounds like a treatment to me)

does not reduce viral load of those infected in spite of it...

has been shown to reduce natural immunity to the virus it is supposed to prevent?

I especially have trouble injecting children with the mRNA treatments, not only because the long term effects are a great unknown, but just on the basis of subjecting an extremely low risk group to a possibly even greater risk of life-changing adverse effects. I can find no scientific justification for the risk.

Amen!!