James Doogue

This may help in your approach to Covid-19 Vaccination

My motivation to get vaccinated had nothing to do with protecting me from Covid-19. From all the research I had done, and that was a lot, I was confident that if I did catch Covid-19 my symptoms would be treatable. While I have some significant underlying health conditions they don't include being severely obese, elderly, diabetic or pre- diabetic, uncontrolled blood pressure, blood clotting disorder or history, kidney disease, heart disease, or dementia. I do have a history of bronchitis, but Covid-19 treatment can cope with that as long as you don't have those other co-morbidities.

I got the Covid-19 vaccine simply because of the multiple threats that in order to travel I would need to be vaccinated. These threats were made by the UN WHO, the EU, by the two upper layers of Australian government, and by multiple airlines and cruise lines, not to mention various other governments of countries I wish to visit.

When you go for the vaccine there is a questionnaire asked by the nurse which I signed at the bottom as correct. I lied on two questions. One asked if I was being coerced to have the vaccination. Clearly I felt coerced. The other question was, did I give informed consent. I know That a great deal of research has gone into the development of the vaccination, but given the rush to market, the fact the manufacturers demanded government indemnity, and the government is seeking indemnity by asking this question, I certainly don't believe I, the government or the scientists really know everything we should know about these vaccines.

Remember when blood clots first started to be reported, the public were told it was unlikely to be related to the vaccine. Then the connection was made but we were told the risk was minimal, 1 in 1 million. Now we are under 1 in 200,000. I know that's still a low risk, though how many people think 1 in about 56 million is good enough odds to buy a lotto ticket?😏If the odds of a blood clot has multiplies 6 fold in such a brief time, what about the odds of other adverse reactions we are told are a possibility?

So maybe the overall risk of an adverse reaction of some sort is not 54% as advertised by AstraZenaca? And maybe the risk of severe adverse reactions are greater than we are told? The point is, anyone who thinks they can give informed consent are kidding themselves. The purpose of that question is simply an attempt to get the government off the hook when adverse reactions occur.

So what has been my experience?

Three days after the AstraZenaca jab and I'm still feeling pretty bad. I think my body has just been weakened from the amount of pain I went through, starting a few hours after the jab, peaking within 24 hours and going for 48 hours.

My temperature peaked at 38.8°C, all my joints ached, very painfully at locations where I have arthritis. My body ached all over. But by far the worst part was the headache which brought back memories of viral meningitis when I was 21.

I have suffered from migraines. This was worse. The scary thing was I'm already on pain medication for my chronic pain conditions. I also have access to even stronger pain medication for breakthrough treatment when the pain becomes unbearable. I used all of that, and still I suffered.

I know most people will have no reaction or just a mild reaction, initially. Who knows what the long term effects are? And all the focus is on blood clots, but why must people risk a day or two of severe pain at all?

Remember not everyone who isn't vaccinated will get Covid-19. In fact the highest infection rate in the world is Czechia at just over 15%. But between 30% and 70% of covid infected are asymptomatic. Many just have mild symptoms. In the UK and US those seeking hospital treatment is about 6%. So a worst case might be that in a society with no vaccines about 1% of people might be sick enough from Covid-19 to seek hospital treatment.

Choice of Vaccine?

The government knows that Astrazeneca has had a lot of bad publicity because of the clotting. But that happens to be the vaccine they have the most ready access to. So they are still recommending it for those over 50 years where the chance of blood clotting, due to a lower immune response, is lower.

The Astrazeneca jab is what's known as a Vector Vaccine, different from the Pfizer jab which is a messenger mRNA vaccine.

a vector vaccine, involves genetic material from the COVID-19 virus being placed in a modified version of a different virus (viral vector). When the viral vector gets into your cells, it delivers genetic material from the COVID-19 virus that gives your cells instructions to make copies of the S protein. Once your cells display the S proteins on their surfaces, your immune system responds by creating antibodies and defensive white blood cells. If you later become infected with the COVID-19 virus, the antibodies will fight the virus.

The Pfizer messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine uses genetically engineered mRNA to give your cells instructions for how to make the S protein found on the surface of the COVID-19 virus. After vaccination, your immune cells begin making the S protein pieces and displaying them on cell surfaces. This causes your body to create antibodies. If you later become infected with the COVID-19 virus, these antibodies will fight the virus.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines use mRNA.

From this description it seems to me that the Astrazeneca vaccine puts your body through a lot more, just in case you become infected, than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine.

Given my time again, I would have gone to my GP and demanded I be given whatever is required to get me a Pfizer had, not an Astrazeneca jab.

After all, if Pfizer is good enough for Scott Morrison and most of the celebrity vaccine recipients, it's good enough for others.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1040 words, total size 6 kb.