What happens when the COVID-19 vaccines enter the body?

So, the 5 people we know who got jabbed the first time say never again. Extremely high temperatures, pain in all the body, bad headaches for more than a week. They all thought they were gong to die. But don't worry . it is just the vaccine doing it's job.

What happens is, first your body detects the stainless steel fragments...

What happens is, first your body detects the stainless steel fragments...

Nothing, unless you have stainless allergy.

Now let’s have some real fun and see, if and how much of the text 12 years old Wixy of N.Y. could read or understand and then even repeat in her own words. lol

I had absolutely no issues with both Pfizer shots. Does that mean it is not working?

I have high hopes for the oral vaccine that Shionogi is working on.

I had absolutely no issues with both Pfizer shots. Does that mean it is not working?

It means your immune system may not be as strong as it could be, but you will still benefit from the effectiveness of the vaccine.

So, the 5 people we know who got jabbed the first time say never again. Extremely high temperatures, pain in all the body, bad headaches for more than a week. They all thought they were gong to die. But don't worry . it is just the vaccine doing it's job.

Yes. That is the vaccine doing its job. Correct. What is your point?

i felt nothing, not even the needle poke. The second Moderna got me dragged out for a day but that was it.

Only once in my life had a vaccine knock me down for eight hours, and that was the flu last year. All those state department boosters were fine back in the day.

I know quite a few people that had zero reactions. And that is common. Complainers will always have reactions to even breathing air because that is their life style. Everything in their world is an issue, as we see here on this forum.

I wake up happy because I woke up. Why can’t most of you?

@Gene Hackman: I agree totally. I respect those in fear so mask up, and always washed my hands except for after number one because I always shower well, and that is not where bacteria flourish, but lots of paranoid people out there so respect their wishes.

So this article describes how the vaccine was designed to work, not what actually happens. The expressed protein was designed to remain anchored on the cell surface, but what actually happens is that the spike protein circulates throughout the body for days, which can cause a number of nasty things.

Unlike most vaccines, the mRNA vaccines rapidly leave the injection site and some even crosses the blood brain barrier. The lipid nanoparticles have been shown to accumulate in the ovaries, spleen, kidneys...

If you want to learn more about what ACTUALLY happens when you get the vaccine, check out Robert malone, the inventor of this technology...

They become spike protein and prion growing factories.

Yes. That is the vaccine doing its job. Correct. What is your point?

Are you for real?? Ever taken vitamin D?? Or an aspirin?? Did you experience those kind of side effects?? These inoculations are extremely dangerous. They usually take up to 12 years to get approved, but because of corona these have all been given the green light under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Moderna's vaccine was done in 2 days? https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-designed-coronavirus-vaccine-in-2-days-2020-11

Shinkansencaboose....

I had absolutely no issues with both Pfizer shots. Does that mean it is not working?

No, it means you are like the vast majority of people who experience very mild or NO effects at all.

I also had no noticeable issues.

You might also experience a fever or other signs of sickness. All of these mean that your body is doing exactly what it’s supposed to. This is a safe and natural process that happens when the body is ...

... is detecting something that should not be in your body.

.. is detecting something that should not be in your body.

Congratulations you have discovered how vaccines work.

Are you for real?? Ever taken vitamin D?? Or an aspirin?? Did you experience those kind of side effects?? These inoculations are extremely dangerous. They usually take up to 12 years to get approved, but because of corona these have all been given the green light under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

All is completely mistaken, medical interventions that work by stimulating the immune system are the ones that tend to produce... immune reactions. There is no comparison with drugs which have the opposite mechanism of action.

Also vaccine do not require 12 years to be approved, and much less to be tested properly, that is just a myth and previous vaccines got full approval without this obviously unnecessary "requisite".

So this article describes how the vaccine was designed to work, not what actually happens

No, it describes what actually happens, your faulty explanation is still false and based on completely different conditions tried in animals that are impossible to repeat in humans, if you try to misrepresent this as happening in people after vaccination then it would be the same to do it with the rest of the experiments in animals and say that "100% of vaccinated individuals survived the infection and 100% of unvaccinated individuals died soon because of lack of protection"

Our neurotic fear and our idiotic approach of treating everyone as being at equal risk of death of a virus with a near-100% survival rate -- that's what has changed the way we live.

If the experts of the world say the measures are justified and effective while people without name on the internet say the opposite I think is obvious which side is simply much more likely to be correct.

99.7 You survive if you’re healthy under 70

99.9 You survive if you’re healthy on their 50.

Do your own research it’s amazing what you may fine

Do your own research it’s amazing what you may fine

Again, this is if you get sick and receive adequate and complete medical treatment, and there is still a good chance you will get some long lasting problems.

Now, if everybody gets sick at the same time and health services are swamped the death rates become much closer to the hospitalization rates, in countries like Japan where many private hospitals have to choose between rejecting patients or going broke this situation is not difficult to get to.

Not peer reviewed yet but very interesting.

Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

There was no external funding for the project.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Not peer reviewed yet but very interesting.

It may be interesting, but it does not mean getting infected is a better strategy than getting vaccinated. It even supports the idea that those who have already been infected can improve their protection by getting vaccinated.

Not peer reviewed yet but very interesting.

The lack of peer review is very noticeable, important determinants of immunity are left out of the study without explanation, and this detracts a lot of the usefulness of the results.

For example they recognize to be biased towards asymptomatic infections (since asymptomatic people are not tested as much as people with symptoms, and specially as people that end up requiring hospitalization). So it would be expected the advantage of the infection is related to having heavy symptoms or even hospitalization, specially when compared with a vaccine that was formulated with safety as the first priority.

It would be expected but it would not represent an argument against the vaccines, because the people would need to be heavily symptomatic to get this improved protection against a second time, while the vaccine would still offer heavy advantages against the infection without having to be heavily symptomatic in the first place.

I went out with friends after both inoculations and did not notice a thing. I could not even recall which arm I had my shots in.

A natural response of a strong immune system is enough to stop the virus’s even if some symptoms arise.

Nature has her immune system developed well beyond an artificially activated immune response by a so-called vaccine.

A natural response of a strong immune system is enough to stop the virus’s even if some symptoms arise.

A vaccine still improve your chances, it doesn't matter if your immunity is in good or bad chances, it is proved scientifically. And no, it can also be demonstrated that immunity works better after vaccination than before, that is the whole point of the vaccines and their efficacy tests.

I had a proper immune system reaction after my Janssen-shot, it felt like a real flu condensed to 10 hours of suffering. But it was a lot better than the chance of hospitalization from getting the real bug.

I got the shot, arm did hurt a bit but no worse than after a regular flu shot. Seven hours later my idling immune system was up in full alert screaming "Intruder!" all about the body.

The next day was devoid of fun but I got over it. Hospitalization of any kind, even for a single day, would have been worse. And my chance of hospitalization due to covid would have been about 25%. My chance of intensive care 10%. My chance of dying 5%.

I'm glad I got the vaccine.

What happens with these EUA Covid medicines enter the body? Well, they’re finding out more with each passing month, and it’s not pretty.

Maybe they should revisit the beneficial properties of safe and existing drugs first.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/09/why_all_the_fuss_about_ivermectin.html

When will see an affordable solution? How about looking at some now.

Maybe they should revisit the beneficial properties of safe and existing drugs first.

The example you put is not exactly safe (just look at the reports of poisonings) and more importantly is not even useful against COVID.

In comparison with that the well proved efficacy and safety of the vaccines seems much better, even against variants against it was not designed to fight it reduces very importantly hospitalizations, complications and deaths.

"I won't take that effective vaccine, but I'll take a horse-de-wormer, stat!"

The example you put is not exactly safe (just look at the reports of poisonings) and more importantly is not even useful against COVID

Only in those who take formulations meant for horses or cattle. They resort to this because those pushing vaccines are making it very difficult for people to get human versions of these safe and effective drugs, which have been given very safely over the decades to billions of people.

In comparison with that the well proved efficacy and safety of the vaccines seems much better, even against variants against it was not designed to fight it reduces very importantly hospitalizations, complications and deaths.

The vaccines are much more risky than the human versions of ivermectin. Places that have distributed ivermectin have seen drastic decreases in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths even with the variants, unlike the vaccines which are not very effective against variants and in fact likely cause the emergence of many of them via immune escape....

Only in those who take formulations meant for horses or cattle

False, ivermectin has well characterized risks that require medical vigilance to be used in humans, veterinarian formulations do not include any extra compounds that would specifically increase the risk, to be used safely it completely requires a doctor to keep an eye for the frequent complications that it causes.

The vaccines are much more risky than the human versions of ivermectin.

That is still completely false even if you repeat it, as easy to prove as you always end up not presenting data to prove it, asking people to trust your authority over the medical and scientific consensus of the world. That is not something rational to ask.

Places that have used ivermectin also have had huge sudden increase in cases, hospitalizations and deaths, is this also because of the drug? if your argument depends on lack of proving a causal relationship then it works both ways

Places that have used ivermectin also have had huge sudden increase in cases, hospitalizations and deaths, is this also because of the drug?

No, that is completely false. The only times that has happened is when the authorities are pressured to stop using ivermectin. The data is very clear.

So, no data again? Easy to expect.

And no, many countries like South Africa, India, Brazil (most south america) have seen huge spikes of cases together with ivermectin use, according to your mistaken approach that correlation always means causation this proves ivermectin causes more cases of COVID.

The reality is nobody knows for sure "yet" what the longterm effect are from recieving whatever vaccine you received ,regardless of how happy or relieved you think you are.

A false sense of security is quite prevalent in Japan.

Only time will tell.

That's the undeniable truth.

If you received the vaccine and feel glad then good for you.

If you choose not to receive the vaccine and feel glad then good for you too.

The reality is nobody knows for sure "yet" what the longterm effect are from recieving whatever vaccine you received ,regardless of how happy or relieved you think you are.

But it is already well known that the vaccines have a much lower risk of causing problems in the long term in comparison with the infection (specially because the infection already causes long term and permanent problems). This means not vaccinating can validly be described as an irrational choice.

And no, many countries like South Africa, India, Brazil (most south america) have seen huge spikes of cases together with ivermectin use, according to your mistaken approach that correlation always means causation this proves ivermectin causes more cases of COVID.

Cases, hospitalizations, deaths have plummeted within several countries in those regions that distributed ivermectin; these were not nation-wide trials, but limitted to specific regions, cities, or states. In those regions, the numbers stayed low, as long as ivermectin use was continued. I explained this many times already, and I 've already provided the references.

With vaccines, the opposite seems to be the case, the highly vaccinated regions continue to have widespread infections.

Cases, hospitalizations, deaths have plummeted within several countries in those regions that distributed ivermectin

And also have increased, according to you that is enough to prove ivermectin caused this. This also include specific places, your explanations do nothing to deny this extremely obvious fact.

Either you think correlation is always causation (and therefore ivermectin is the cause of huge peak of cases) or you accept this is not always the case and an actual study have to be done with epidemiological controls to actually prove causation (but then ivermectin do not fullfill this). Not doing it and just trying to misrepresent half of the correlations while hiding the other half is just having double standards and it is clear proof of not being interested in reality but in deceiving people with half truths.

Vaccines obvious can't cause infections, but also obviously have caused a huge reduction of hospitalizations, complications and deaths, all proved scientifically in a clear way, that is the huge difference.

Cases, hospitalizations, deaths have plummeted within several countries in those regions that distributed ivermectin

And also have increased, according to you that is enough to prove ivermectin caused this. This also include specific places, your explanations do nothing to deny this extremely obvious fact.

That is false. Do you have a reference for that.

Vaccines obvious can't cause infections,

but they have cause numerous serious adverse effects and deaths, with some examples reported here on JT.

And they cause the emerge of some variants via immune escape.

That is false. Do you have a reference for that.

So you now think references are necessary to say something? that is a very nice advancement, I wonder why is then that you have not provided any for the many things you comment that completely contradict the scientific consensus.

For example this

but they have cause numerous serious adverse effects and deaths

Nowhere have you provided any evidence that vaccines have caused any death, and this has not been reported here, what has been reported are a small number of deaths happening after vaccination and that are being still investigated to see if they are even related or not.