Don't question the science

 Dr C has been threatened by Youtube for giving out "disinformation" about covid.

So his revenge is to actually quote the scientific articles, and pointing out their contradictions.

.

there is a question about giving covid vaccine to pregnant women (as I have noted in the past, one of our friend's daughter died of covid because she refused the vaccine due to pregnancy, and another lost her baby at 7 months for the same reason).

So if you ask if women should risk getting the vaccine in areas where the original Covid virus is circulating, I say yes.

But what no one seems to notice is that a lot of the instructions being pushed on people assumes the original toxic covid is around: And the dirty little secret is that things have changed. Not only is there herd immunity but the newer strains have a much lower mortality (and are usually only fatal in those of us with medical problems, such as diabetes, obesity, asthma, or old age).

Given that there are now only mild version of the covid virus shouldn't the public be educated in the risk/benefit ratio? I mean, if the experts censor the actual data that points out the lower risk of newer covid strains then maybe low risk people might not get the shot, but on the other hand being honest might improve the trust of ordinary folks  (and people who distrust the medical experts include not only anti vaxers but the black community).

I am reading about rumors of miscarriage rates after the shot, and this disinformation is frightening a lot of women.

But what is not being discussed; the risk benefit ratio. What exactly is the risk (including long term risk) of getting the shot during pregnancy? 

Should we avoid it in early pregnancy, or is there a cardiac risk for mom and baby later in pregnancy? Will the danger of blood clots mean a small percentage of women later in prenancy will have placental damage?

And does the risk data apply to getting the original vaccine, or does it apply to those getting boosters? And what about boosters in people who already had the basic vaccine and are now pregnant?

So in discussing the issue, Dr. C quotes the science:

Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Pfizer Limited & BioNTech Manufacturing, GmbH https://www.gov.uk/government/publica... Updated, 16th August, 2022 Reproductive and developmental toxicity Fertility and early embryonic development and embryofoetal development A combined fertility and developmental study (including teratogenicity and postnatal investigations) in rats is ongoing. Prenatal and postnatal development, including maternal function No such studies have been done. Studies in which the offspring (juvenile animals) are dosed and/or further evaluated No such studies have been done. Local tolerance No such studies have been done. The assessments made as part of the general toxicity study should suffice and a separate study is not needed. Other toxicity studies No such studies have been done.

Translation: Yes the experts say to give the vaccine to your pregnant patients, but there is no scientific data showing this is safe.

No wonder he gets into trouble.

Now, I suport giving the vaccine to high risk folk, but what about giving the vaccine to low risk folk when the virus going around now is not much of a danger to them?

for example, should you get your baby a covid shot?
The MMR/CDC report on giving covid to toddlers and infants show that most of the side effects are mild... but the data is self reported and only covers the first week after the shot.

approximately 23,266 children were enrolled in v-safe after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

The most frequent systemic reactions reported to v-safe after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines were irritability or crying among approximately one half of children aged 6 months–2 years.

Italics mine. 

Among children aged ≥3 years, systemic reactions after vaccination were less frequently reported; injection site pain was the most frequently reported reaction among these older children.

VAERS received a total of 1,017 reports of adverse events after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccination among children aged 6 months–4 years and children aged 6 months–5 years; 998 (98.1%) events were classified as nonserious and 19 (1.9%) as serious. No reports of myocarditis after vaccination were reported.

So should we worry that half the babies getting the shot got irritable?

What worries me about this is that the older Pertussis vaccine we used to use caused some kids to have severe irritability and crying, and some of these kids were diagnosed as having a form of encephalitis. That is why back in the early 1990s, and after these reports hit the news, some parents avoided the shot (and a couple hundred kids died of whooping cough) but the end result was that they switched to a newer (more expensive) acellular vaccine that didn't cause this side effect. End of problem.

But if the irritability after the older pertussis vaccine suggested a tiny percentage of kids developed encephalitis, could the irritability of kids after covid suggest the same thing?

my take in all of this: The original Covid was bad. But the newer strains are mild. 

The vaccines did protect against the original strain, but don't work well against the newer (weak) strains, meaning you have to get boosters every couple of months or so to get partial protection.

So give it to high risk folk.

and maybe get a vaccine that actually works against these newer less lethal strains of covid.

For me, I got the AZ vaccine but no boosters for this reason.

if they get a new vaccine that actually works against the newer strains I will reconsider getting a booster. 

IN the Philippines, covid deaths are low, case reports are low, but community surveillence suggests a lot of people have mild cases and are not getting tested 

For example, Dr. Angie takes the test regularly and when one of the employees tested positive, told our cook who sleeps there at night, and the maid who is in close contact with that employee, to get tested. The maid refused saying she was afraid of catching covid at the testing lab. The cook merely laughed and said Dr A is not God and she wasn't sick. (meaning she didn't want to quarantine for a week if the test was positive).

Now, last year, our drivers needed a negative test every time they delivered rice to Manila.  But now testing is not required. 

and the government is now not recommending people without symptoms getting a test.

And of course, the dirty little secrets is that the rapid tests might not be completely accurate... If you pay more and wait, the blood tests are probably accuate.

Anyway, the number of cases remain low:

• 2,452 new cases and 46 new deaths in the Philippines [source]

 but Dengue cases are up: over 100 thousand cases reported so far this year, and again you have to realize that a lot of mild cases never get seen.

and elderly are dying of usual problems: cancer, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart attacks.

the school kids however need a shot to go back to school.

So will we see young men dying of myocarditis?

Given that sudden cardiac death from genetic reasons is alas common here in the Philippines, it might be hard to separate these cases from vaccine cardiomyopathy.

But I am only aware of one neighbor in his 30s who died of a heart attack two months ago and he was an alcoholic so probably not vaccine related (although shabu always comes to mind when young people die of strokes or heart attacks).

Ironically despite the dengue vaccine debacle a couple years ago, most people here are going along with getting the shots, maybe because they trusted Duterte. Will they also trust BBMarcos? Reports he is clamping down on populist organizers of the left who might have spuported anti government militants does not look promising, but it's too soon to judge his actions. A lot depends if the crime rate goes up, if the drug use goes up, and if the economy provides jobs. Given the increase in price of fertilizer and diesel, he has a lot of challenges on his plate.

Sigh.