I don't think people realize how many jobs this is about to destroy.

[BPKY]

Why would the FDA say this. It’s safe and effective

FDA: Covid-Vaccinated at Risk of Sudden Death for 15 Years - Slay News

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has made an alarming admission, revealing that people who received Covid mRNA "vaccines" are at risk of suffering a sudden and unexpected death for up to 15 years after they received their last injection.

slaynews.com

It's about time those MFers came clean. Pathologists have been pulling long rubberush worm-like sludge out of the corpses of mRNA vaxxed people for years and the reports are cancelled.

Id like to find this report though.

"According to a new peer-reviewed study, the fatal blood clot was caused by a Pfizer “vaccine” that came from a “highly lethal batch” of Covid shots."

One of the more neglected threats from the mRNA jab is that there were fly by night labs created to supply the demand and that they were therefore not properly supervised.

 

[BPKY]

Hey look, more misinformation about the veracity of the claims.

The FDA "admission" is from a 2020 guidance document that describes the best practices for the long-term study and evaluation for clinical studies involving Gene Therapy products. That's like saying Ford admits that their cars are "tricking time bombs" (as the website claims the FDA is admitting) because they recommend having your car regularly maintained.

Second, the "peer-reviewed study" isn't a study. It's a case report about a single subject that died and the coroner attributed the death to not the vaccine and the authors (Peter McCollough, the supplement salesman) used to create a recommended autopsy routine. There was no study conducted and no findings to review or dispute. All of their claims boiled down to, the coroner didn't perform this one test so we recommend that all future deaths of persons exposed to the mRNA vaccine receive this test.

Again, this is like a Ford car being involved in an accident, then the accident report comes out saying that it was caused because the Ford's brakes didn't engage. Then someone creates a possible checklist for future accident investigations stating that this one instance didn't check to make sure the turn signals were working, so they recommend all future investigators check for working turn signals. Then some website comes out and points to that checklist and states "Study of Ford cars confirms that turn signals are the cause of accidents".

Case studies are done all the time. A clinician or researcher documents the results of small treatment groups and reports the results along with an interpretation.

It says this one was peer reviewed. That just means basically that the procedures were done in line with what the industry would expect. It doesn't mean that the analysis by the authors is accurate.

It's just one study to put in the pile for review and comparison with others. "Misinformation" is a statement of opinion

 

[CJsE]

Case studies are done all the time. A clinician or researcher documents the results of small treatment groups and reports the results along with an interpretation.

It says this one was peer reviewed. That just means basically that the procedures were done in line with what the industry would expect. It doesn't mean that the analysis by the authors is accurate.

It's just one study to put in the pile for review and comparison with others. "Misinformation" is a statement of opinion

Hey cool, speaking in abstracts is great and all but did you read this specific case report? Because I did. It's like 4 pages long and like 1/3 of it is pictures. It took 5 minutes to read. Did you read the article that is using that case report and frames it and the FDA guidance as proof of mRNA dangers? I did, it's like 1,500 words long and takes 2 minutes to read.

Go ahead and actually read them, then come back here and tell me how accurate the article is or that the conclusions being drawn in both the article and the statements on the board are informed and reasonable. Come back here and tell me that the article's writer didn't invent drastic conclusions about what either document proposes.

Here, I'll even help out. The board's resident lunatic already posted the article's link.
FDA Guidance January 2020 (Before the vaccines were even considered)
Case Report that makes 0 results or findings

Edit: To be clear, I'm not faulting the case report for not having any results or findings, that's not what they're for. I'm saying that it's being used as proof of findings in both the article and how it's being presented.

 

[pittbb80]

Hey cool, speaking in abstracts is great and all but did you read this specific case report? Because I did. It's like 4 pages long and like 1/3 of it is pictures. It took 5 minutes to read. Did you read the article that is using that case report and frames it and the FDA guidance as proof of mRNA dangers? I did, it's like 1,500 words long and takes 2 minutes to read.

Go ahead and actually read them, then come back here and tell me how accurate the article is or that the conclusions being drawn in both the article and the statements on the board are informed and reasonable. Come back here and tell me that the article's writer didn't invent drastic conclusions about what either document proposes.

Here, I'll even help out. The board's resident lunatic already posted the article's link.
FDA Guidance January 2020 (Before the vaccines were even considered)
Case Report that makes 0 results or findings

Edit: To be clear, I'm not faulting the case report for not having any results or findings, that's not what they're for. I'm saying that it's being used as proof of findings in both the article and how it's being presented.

No matter how much data there is you'll find some excuse to discount it. The ONLY data that should be needed is the VAERS data base. You know the one that was used for decades to detect adverse effects of vaccines until................COVID! You know the one that resulted in vaccines being pulled from the market for a fraction of the indicators in the VAERS data base?

This is not alot different than the refusal to admit that Ivermectin was a legitimate treatment for Covid. Muh horse medicine.

But like I said, I dont have to worry about whether or not there are long term affects. So its no skin off my back.

 

[BPKY]

Hey cool, speaking in abstracts is great and all but did you read this specific case report? Because I did. It's like 4 pages long and like 1/3 of it is pictures. It took 5 minutes to read. Did you read the article that is using that case report and frames it and the FDA guidance as proof of mRNA dangers? I did, it's like 1,500 words long and takes 2 minutes to read.

Go ahead and actually read them, then come back here and tell me how accurate the article is or that the conclusions being drawn in both the article and the statements on the board are informed and reasonable. Come back here and tell me that the article's writer didn't invent drastic conclusions about what either document proposes.

Here, I'll ev

en help out. The board's resident lunatic already posted the article's link.
FDA Guidance January 2020 (Before the vaccines were even considered)
Case Report that makes 0 results or findings

Edit: To be clear, I'm not faulting the case report for not having any results or findings, that's not what they're for. I'm saying that it's being used as proof of findings in both the article and how it's being presented.

I read down the original link by Slay (?) pretty far but not to the end. I shall do as you requested and come back.

I thought SLAY seemed problematic as a source. Never heard of them.

I remember the infamous case study but Andrew Wakefield was just a case study of his treatment of a dozen autistic kids. He just reported his observations and hypothesized about it. It became a big deal and was attacked out of fear that someone might beliieve it proved vaccines caused autism or something, which was not the case. So I'm sensitive to mischaracterizations

 

[CJsE]

Back on topic of why this is such a poor decision. This video does a pretty good job of explaining just how ridiculously hard it will be to spur the American ocean container ship industry. But it also demonstrates why it is important for domestic production to increase, which I have no real problem with if the way they structured it made any sense. If they came out with a $75-100 per container tariff (which is what large, foreign-owned ocean vessels will pay), it would suck but it wouldn't literally end thousands of businesses and completely disrupt a huge portion of our export industry.

 

[jtownknowitall]

Let's get one thing very, very straight here. THERE WAS NO VACCINE! Vaccines help prevent the contraction and spread of viruses. What they passed off as a vaccine was a shot that was mRNA and modified peoples' immune systems permanently, causing long-term health damage to their bodies while not combating any viruses. That shot has killed people, not the virus. Natural immunity was the only thing that helped to prevent the spread of that virus any further.

Are you really so stupid that you believe what you post?

You obviously believe the goofy stuff you post

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

 

[Millerton]

No matter how much data there is you'll find some excuse to discount it. The ONLY data that should be needed is the VAERS data base. You know the one that was used for decades to detect adverse effects of vaccines until................COVID! You know the one that resulted in vaccines being pulled from the market for a fraction of the indicators in the VAERS data base?

This is not alot different than the refusal to admit that Ivermectin was a legitimate treatment for Covid. Muh horse medicine.

But like I said, I dont have to worry about whether or not there are long term affects. So its no skin off my back.

Yep, and I think only 10% of people with side effects report them to vaers

 

[pittbb80]

View embedded media

Shes kinda hot. She was on Pierce Morgan as well

 

[pittbb80]

Yep, and I think only 10% of people with side effects report them to vaers

Yes A Harvard study indicated that only 10% of side affects are reported.

 

[BPKY]

You obviously believe the goofy stuff you post

The Pfizer shot and some others were not vaccines going by the traditional definition.

The definition was tweaked so that they could be classified as vaccines and therefore avoid the stricter evaluations that drugs have to hurdle, BY LAW. There was no part of a real SARA-CoV-2 virus in the shot that could trigger an immune response, like with real vaccines. It was a genetic therapy, not a vaccine. They knew it wouldn't be approved as a drug so they cheated and called it a vaccine.

But it served a Darwinian function and expunged substandard genetics from the societal pool. Not trying to be mean. Just trying to sound like a Democrat here...🤷

 

[BPKY]

Hey cool, speaking in abstracts is great and all but did you read this specific case report? Because I did. It's like 4 pages long and like 1/3 of it is pictures. It took 5 minutes to read. Did you read the article that is using that case report and frames it and the FDA guidance as proof of mRNA dangers? I did, it's like 1,500 words long and takes 2 minutes to read.

Go ahead and actually read them, then come back here and tell me how accurate the article is or that the conclusions being drawn in both the article and the statements on the board are informed and reasonable. Come back here and tell me that the article's writer didn't invent drastic conclusions about what either document proposes.

Here, I'll even help out. The board's resident lunatic already posted the article's link.
FDA Guidance January 2020 (Before the vaccines were even considered)
Case Report that makes 0 results or findings

Edit: To be clear, I'm not faulting the case report for not having any results or findings, that's not what they're for. I'm saying that it's being used as proof of findings in both the article and how it's being presented.

Yeah, the case report concluded that heart disease was not the cause and that it was likely that the jab could have caused the hemorrhages leading to death; especially since his jab came from a batch notoriously associated with severe adverse reactions.

Which could also just mean it was the batch which was to blame, no?

And the report suggested autopsy protocols be designed to better identify this pathology for use in future autopsies. Finally, it warned healthcare providers to watch for this pulmonary condition among vaccinated patients.

Now to the FDA article...

 

[pittbb80]

Yeah, the case report concluded that heart disease was not the cause and that it was likely that the jab could have caused the hemorrhages leading to death; especially since his jab came from a batch notoriously associated with severe adverse reactions.

Which could also just mean it was the batch which was to blame, no?

And the report suggested autopsy protocols be designed to better identify this pathology for use in future autopsies. Finally, it warned healthcare providers to watch for this pulmonary condition among vaccinated patients.

Now to the FDA article...

I’m sure the health care professionals paid to administer the jab will be extra vigilant in identifying this pulmonary condition in jabbed patients

 

[BPKY]

I’m sure the health care professionals paid to administer the jab will be extra vigilant in identifying this pulmonary condition in jabbed patients

Yes, I have the utmost faith that they will. As if their professional relationship with Pfizer depends on it!

 

[BPKY]

Hey cool, speaking in abstracts is great and all but did you read this specific case report? Because I did. It's like 4 pages long and like 1/3 of it is pictures. It took 5 minutes to read. Did you read the article that is using that case report and frames it and the FDA guidance as proof of mRNA dangers? I did, it's like 1,500 words long and takes 2 minutes to read.

Go ahead and actually read them, then come back here and tell me how accurate the article is or that the conclusions being drawn in both the article and the statements on the board are informed and reasonable. Come back here and wetell me that the article's writer didn't invent drastic conclusions about what either document proposes.

Here, I'll even help out. The board's resident lunatic already posted the article's link.
FDA Guidance January 2020 (Before the vaccines were even considered)
Case Report that makes 0 results or findings

Edit: To be clear, I'm not faulting the case report for not having any results or findings, that's not what they're for. I'm saying that it's being used as proof of findings in both the article and how it's being presented.

So. I have more questions and observations. Maybe I'm missing something but this FDA Report is dated 2020 and the Case Report is from this year. 2025.

Is the FDA Report constantly updated or something?

I saw no recitation of the McCullough case study.

Surely you noticed this FDA Report was only about gene therapies, right?

On page 2, footnote 3 states that no recommendation for follow up studies apply to vaccines for infectious disease indications. The word COVID isn't even in the Report

Not that it changes my position on the scamdemic, but someone should sue Slay Magazine. When you're right, you're right.

 

[CJsE]

So. I have more questions and observations. Maybe I'm missing something but this FDA Report is dated 2020 and the Case Report is from this year. 2025.

Is the FDA Report constantly updated or something?

I saw no recitation of the McCullough case study.

Surely you noticed this FDA Report was only about gene therapies, right?

On page 2, footnote 3 states that no recommendation for follow up studies apply to vaccines for infectious disease indications. The word COVID isn't even in the Report

Not that it changes my position on the scamdemic, but someone should sue Slay Magazine. When you're right, you're right.

Again, I'd have no problem with the case report. They want to make a completely unverified claim and recommend a course of action that probably isn't going to happen, go for it. Although I find it strange for the authors to report no conflict of interest when one is an officer for a vitamin wellness brand that sells vaccine alternative supplements with specific brands to fight "the dangers of mRNA COVID vaccines" under the author's recommended products. The fact that his "finding" that the spike protein is responsible for the man's death lines up pretty conveniently with his recommended line of supplements entitled Spike Support and Ultimate Spike Detox that are sold on his company's website.

I have a problem when people trot it out as something that it isn't and act like it's proof of anything.

The reason that the GT Follow-Up procedures are included even though it never mentions COVID is because it was released before COVID. The reason that it's included in this whole thing is because the Case Report references the 5-15 year recommended follow up protocol for gene therapy treatments, because the author feels that the mRNA vaccines should be classified as such despite the vaccine not entering the nucleus or editing DNA, both of which are essential functions of GT. Why doe she do this? Because he sells "spike protein defense" supplements.

That's all it take for the slate article (and pitbb80) to call that FDA guideline a "bombshell admission" by the FDA that the vaccine can cause sudden death for up to 15 years.

According to the FDA, the mRNA “vaccines” have created a sudden death ticking time bomb due to the massively increased risk of “vaccinated” people suffering from a deadly blood clot.