Boosters 3x MRNA material compared to original jab?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   9 posts
  • Mon, Dec 06, 2021 - 02:00pm

    #1
    Der Untermensch

    Der Untermensch

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 21 2020

    Posts: 6

    count placeholder1

    Boosters 3x MRNA material compared to original jab?

I just read an article from Dr. Elizabeth Eads on USAWatchdog.com (https://usawatchdog.com/vax-causes-variants-hospitals-murder-cv19-patients-dr-elizabeth-eads/) stating that the original jab was 30 micrograms (mcg) of MRNA material, the second jab was 50mcg and now the “booster” is 100mcg. This doesn’t sound like a booster at all but an entirely different dosing regimen. Has anyone confirmed this?

  • Mon, Dec 06, 2021 - 02:12pm

    #2
    tamarawadams

    tamarawadams

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 21 2020

    Posts: 14

    count placeholder2

    Boosters 3x MRNA material compared to original jab?

This information is incorrect.

Moderna original vaccine is 100 mcg mRNA, booster is 50 mcg mRNA

Pfizer original vaccine is 30 mcg mRNA, booster same at 30 mcg mRNA

 

  • Tue, Jan 11, 2022 - 09:57am

    #3
    TylerVernon

    TylerVernon

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 04 2020

    Posts: 9

    count placeholder1

    Letter to University Objecting to Mandatory Boosters

(1/3) I wanted to share a letter we sent to the university my son attends objecting to mandatory boosters. Offered in the spirit of taking some level of positive action and possibly providing a template for others. I could not find anything similar in the open Web (can’t imagine why). I’ve also sent this letter to my state representatives and governor here in Virginia. This is only my second post, though I’ve been following Dr. Martenson since the the day Wuhan got locked down. I will break the letter up into 2 posts (if possible) – 1) body of the letter and 2) citations.

  • Tue, Jan 11, 2022 - 09:59am

    #4
    TylerVernon

    TylerVernon

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 04 2020

    Posts: 9

    count placeholder2

    2/3 letter to University Objecting to Mandatory Boosters

 

Dear President XXX,

Thank you and your leadership team for all your efforts to create a safe and vibrant learning environment. We fully understand and empathize with the difficult position the XXX University administration finds itself in during this pandemic. It is an extraordinary time with continuing complex health and safety challenges that must be faced. However, as we face the new challenges posed by the Omicron variant, we feel we also need to recognize and adapt to the both the changed nature of the threat it poses and the improved understanding we have of the dangers posed by both the virus and the vaccines.

We have very serious safety and ethical concerns about the recently announced vaccine booster mandate at XXX University. It is both medically and ethically wrong to mandate a medically questionable booster shot that could prove irreparably harmful and potentially life-threatening to some number of already low risk and often well immune college students, especially since the booster provides only limited and short-term public health benefits.

From a public health point of view the primary purpose of a vaccine or a vaccine booster is to prevent infection and transmission among a community. Vaccines should only be offered if the public health benefits outweigh the risks. No vaccine should be mandated if the short and long-term risks are unclear. Ethical leadership demands that students have a fundamental right to determine what is done to their own bodies. A vaccine should only be offered if the student can be informed of the short and long-term benefits and risks (informed consent) and should only be given without coercion (voluntary). The students should choose, for it is their life and health that is at stake.

A strong case can be made for boosters targeted to the elderly or those with serious comorbidities. The same cannot be said for the average, healthy college student. Students have zero risk of death from COVID and a near zero risk of serious illness from any of the variants. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the risk of adverse side effects from the vaccine. We have learned over the last few years that the benefits and risks are different for people in different ages and medical conditions. Clearly, we have learned that the older you are the more beneficial the vaccine is. The same is true for other risk factors such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and others. We also know that there are real vaccine risks that can affect people throughout their lives. Vaccine side-effects such as Myocarditis, Pericarditis, Anaphylaxis, Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome, among others. The benefits and risks are best assessed by individuals in consultation with their personal physician. 

The premise of a booster mandate is that it will be effective in stopping transmission of a dangerous virus in the community and will do so without causing harm to individual students. A number of current studies (provided in the enclosure) indicate that this is at least in dispute, if not completely erroneous. 

·         The danger to be prevented, COVID infection in college age students, is low. The risk of hospitalization or death from Delta is almost zero for college age students, Omicron is far milder in effects even than Delta. Will students get Omicron? The answer is very likely yes. But if the effects are mild, then extraordinary measures such as forced vaccination is not medically or ethically called for.

 

·         The effectiveness of a booster is marginal and the benefits are temporary. Recent data from Ontario shows a booster is only 37% effective against Omicron. Any benefits of a booster are also temporary—recent data from Israel shows a rapid waning of the booster’s effectiveness in reducing infectiousness. Finally, a booster is not necessary for the overwhelming majority of students, who benefit from prior vaccination or natural immunity.

 

·         Most significantly a booster has significant safety risks for adverse events for college students. The risk of Myocarditis in men under 40 doubles with the first Pfizer shot, then it doubles again with the second shot, and doubles again with the third shot to almost 8 times the baseline risk. For Moderna the risk is even higher, reaching 16 times after the second dose. Similarly, a recent study by Kaiser Permanente Northwest finds a 1 in every 1,860 risk of myocarditis in males aged 18-24 following the 2nd dose of vaccine.

The truth is the fully vaccinated and boosted can get infected and are transmitting the disease.  The benefits for college students of vaccination also are almost zero. In contrast the risk of real harm is real. A policy of forced vaccination will have limited effectiveness and risks real, consequential harm.

When the benefits are low because the current variant is mild, and the risk of harm are real, and the long-term risks are unknown instituting a mandatory vaccination program that violates bodily autonomy is both medically unwise and unethical. Therefore, with this letter, we are respectfully requesting that XXX University administration revoke the booster mandate, instead making it the individual choice of each student.

We know that your intent in imposing a booster vaccine mandate at XXX University is to protect the community. However, in the rush to protect XXX University, we ask that you not lose sight of rational ethical reasoning – or of the very important principle of medical necessity. It is a well-known truism that harm and irreparable damage to innocent individuals, almost always resides in “one-size-fits-all” approaches to institutional and governmental policies and practices.

Very Respectfully,

 

Encl- Citations

  • Tue, Jan 11, 2022 - 10:01am

    #5
    TylerVernon

    TylerVernon

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 04 2020

    Posts: 9

    count placeholder0

    3/3 Letter to University Objecting to Mandatory Boosters

 

Citations

1.      Evidence shows that the Booster is likely to have limited or marginal effectiveness and that the Vaccinated still catch and transmit the virus

a.       The longstanding FDA effectiveness threshold to accept a vaccine is 50%. However, data from Ontario show that a 3rd dose (booster) is only 37% effective against Omicon.

                                                              i.      Source: Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta Infection, January 1, 2022.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565

 

b.      Denmark study (December 23, 2021): looked at nearly all PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infections in Denmark from November 20th to December 12th and the researchers found a vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant of minus-76.5% for Pfizer and minus-39.3% for Moderna three months after double vaccination. In other words, the double-vaccinated were considerably more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated.

                                                              i.      Source: Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-COV-2 infection with the Omicron or delta Variants Following a two-dose or Booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish Cohort Study. Dec 23, 2021. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3.full

 

c.       Dr. Fauci, New England Journal of Medicine, December 15, 2021 “Vaccination has also been unable to prevent “breakthrough” infections, allowing subsequent transmission to other people even when the vaccine prevents severe and fatal disease.”

 

d.      CDC determined in summer of 2021 that vaccination does not stop transmission and the vaccinated can still be superspreaders. The viral load of vaccinated people with breakthrough cases is the same as in unvaccinated people, the CDC said.

                                                              i.      Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cdc-report-shows-vaccinated-people-can-spread-covid-19/ar-AAML2bE

 

e.       CDC director Rochelle Walensky, Aug 2021, ““Our vaccines are working exceptionally well,” she said. “They continue to work well with delta with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” Fully vaccinated people who get a COVID-19 “breakthrough” infection can spread the virus to others even if they are not symptomatic, Centers for Disease Control Director Rochelle Walensky told CNN on Thursday.

                                                               i.      Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/08/06/cdc_director_vaccines_no_longer_prevent_you_from_spreading_covid.html

f.        Dr. Mike Ryan, head of the WHO’s emergencies program, “Right now, there is no evidence that I’m aware of that would suggest that boosting the entire population would necessarily provide any greater protection for otherwise healthy individuals against hospitalization and death,” he said.

                                                              i.      Source: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript—1-december-2021

 

2.      The Booster has significant safety risks for adverse events

a.       New Study by Kaiser Permanente Northwest finds 1 in every 1,860 risk of myocarditis in males age 18-24 following the 2nd dose of vaccine. “The true incidence of myopericarditis is markedly higher than the incidence reported to US advisory committees.”

                                                              i.      Source: Risk of Myopericarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in a Large Integrated Health System: A Comparison of Completeness and Timeliness of Two Methods. Dec. 27, 2021. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1

 

b.      The risk of Myocarditis in men under 40 doubles with the first Pfizer shot, then it doubles again with the second shot, and doubles again with the third shot to almost 8 times the baseline risk. For Moderna the risk is even higher, reaching 16 times after the second dose.

                                                              i.      Source: Risk of Myocarditis following sequential COVI-19 vaccinations by age and Sex. December 25, 2021  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full.pdf

 

3.      The Booster will not be durable (won’t last)

a.       Evidence indicates effectiveness against infection may only last 10 weeks/wanes rapidly

                                                              i.      Source: UK Health Security Agency, SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England, Technical briefing 33. Dec. 23, 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf

 

b.      Pfizer Vaccine effectiveness against infection “…became small and insignificant in the third to fourth months.” “These results suggest rapid waning of the booster’s effectiveness in reducing infectiousness

                                                              i.      Source: Waning of SARS-CoV-2 booster viral-load reduction effectiveness. Dec. 29, 2021. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268424v1.full-text

 

4.      The Booster is not necessary for the overwhelming majority of students, who benefit from vaccination or natural immunity.

a.       Key immune cell (T-cells) from prior infection or vaccination still recognize Omicron. These results demonstrate that despite Omicron’s extensive mutations and reduced susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies, the majority of T cell response, induced by vaccination or natural infection, cross-recognises the variant. Well-preserved T cell immunity to Omicron is likely to contribute to protection from severe COVID-19, supporting early clinical observations from South Africa.

                                                              i.      Source: SARS-CoV-2 spike T cell responses induced upon vaccination or infection remain robust against Omicron. Dec. 28, 2021. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.26.21268380v1

 

5.      Omicron is mild

a.       “The World Health Organization said it has found more evidence that the omicron variant causes milder COVID-19 symptoms among those infected. Per Reuters, WHO said the omicron variant targets the upper respiratory tract, which causes mild COVID-19 symptoms compared to previous COVID-19 variants.  This is why COVID-19 case numbers are high but hospitalizations are low.”

                                                               i.      Source: DeseretNews.com. Omicron Variant Symptoms are Milder, but More Research is Needed, WHO says. Jan 4, 2022.

b.      Risk of death is almost zero for college age students without comorbities

 

c.       Multiple countries, South Africa, UK, and others show the previous relationship between cases and deaths has been significantly reduced.

d.      Labs around the world are showing that Omicron is far less pathogenic than the prior variants.

 

  • Tue, Jan 11, 2022 - 10:05am

    #6
    Lorax

    Lorax

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 14 2021

    Posts: 8

    count placeholder0

    Boosters 3x MRNA material compared to original jab?

This recent article is along the same lines regarding the 5 colleges in western Massachusetts requiring the booster:

https://www.gazettenet.com/Guest-columnist-Chris-Matera-44490272

  • Tue, Jan 11, 2022 - 10:28am

    #7
    goldrunner1

    goldrunner1

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 20 2009

    Posts: 174

    count placeholder1

    Boosters 3x MRNA material compared to original jab?

I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba and recently attended a rally at the University of Manitoba for Students against Vaccine Mandates. Most of the people at the rally were students, but there were some professors and administrators. During the rally I had a brief conversation with one of the administrators. She had informed me that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have donated/granted a total 120 million dollars to some of the faculties at the university. Below is the query search for this on duckduckgo. As you can see there are numerous articles covering donations from this foundation to the U of M. This is probably the same case for wherever your sons university might be.

What I am getting at is no matter how factual, logical and true your letter might seem, and I think it is very much so and I am sure the administrators at the university think so as well. This is what were up against.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=billand+melinda+gates+donate+to+university+of+manitoba&atb=v307-1_p&ia=web

 

  • Tue, Jan 11, 2022 - 10:51am   (Reply to #7)

    #8
    TylerVernon

    TylerVernon

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 04 2020

    Posts: 9

    count placeholder1

    Boosters 3x MRNA material compared to original jab?

Goldrunner1, I agree completely and I don’t expect a letter to change the University’s position. I see some value in letting them know people object/push back.  I see some potential with the recent changes in Virginia (new Governor is against mandates), so I sent it to the political leadership here with some small hope for positive change.

  • Tue, Jan 11, 2022 - 11:14am

    #9
    goldrunner1

    goldrunner1

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 20 2009

    Posts: 174

    count placeholder0

    Boosters 3x MRNA material compared to original jab?

TylerVernon, I applaud your efforts to to affect change to this monstrosity any way you can and I agree that this may have some sort of effect however small it may be.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

Login or Register to post comments